Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Calendar 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login 
Old Forum 
|
Active Topics Memberlist Calendar Search Help |
| Register Login Old Forum |
|
Advertisement: |
| Interfaith Dialogue | |
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue |
 Topic: Where Islam & Christian Agree and Differ( Topic Closed) |
  |
| << Prev Page of 64 Next >> |
| Author | Message |
|
Natassia
Senior Member 
Joined: 16 July 2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 177 |
 Posted: 24 August 2009 at 8:08am |
|
@ BMZ Son-in-law? Whose son-in-law? God's? Joseph is Heli's son-in-law. Therefore, the geneology in Luke is that of MARY. |
|
|
You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (John 5:39-40)
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
Natassia
Senior Member
Joined: 16 July 2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 177 |
Posted: 24 August 2009 at 8:54am |
|
@ Shasta's Aunt
Elisabeth, Mary's cousin, is the only mention of Mary's lineage, yet you are completely dismissing this fact. And Mary is the only true mention of Jesus' lineage, since both genealogies list Joseph as the connection to David, yet you are completely dismissing this fact. Where is the logic? Don't you understand that cousin is a generic term for any relative? You don't know if Elisabeth was Mary's mother's niece or if she was Mary's mother's cousin's daughter. The geneologies list through the fathers. There is no mention of females anywhere in the genealogy lists because that is just how they were recorded back then. (As you so kindly provided, the book of Numbers shows that the census was to be recorded through the males. Does that mean that God doesn't care who the mother's were? On the contrary...the descendents of Lot through his daughters, the descendents of Abraham through Sarah, the descendents of Judah through Tamar, the descendents of Boaz through Ruth, the descendents of David through Bathsheba, the entire book of Ezra shows the importance of wives/mothers, etc.) The author of Luke was showing how through Jesus' physical line (Heli, his grandfather and the father-in-law of Joseph) he was from the seed of David. The author of Matthew was showing how through Jesus' inheritence (Joseph his stepfather's line) he was from the kingly line of David. tou ho t_ Gen Sg m OF-THEThis same phrase is used throughout the geneology list. It does not necessarily mean the literal, physical son of... Adam was not the literal, physical son of God, and yet the same phrase is used there as it is used for Joseph and Heli. In Matthew, however, the author uses a different wording. Let me show you: 1:1 biblos biblos n_ Nom Sg f SCROLLgenesews genesis n_ Gen Sg f OF-generating of-lineageihsou iEsous n_ Gen Sg m OF-JESUScristou christos n_ Gen Sg m ANOINTED Christuiou huios n_ Gen Sg m SONdauid dauid ni proper of-DAVID of-Daviduiou huios n_ Gen Sg m SONabraam abraam ni proper of-ABRAHAM of-Abraham1:2 abraam abraam ni proper ABRAHAMegennhsen gennaO vi Aor Act 3 Sg generatES begetston ho t_ Acc Sg m THEisaak isaak ni proper ISAACBeing the "son of" someone does not necessarily mean they were your physical father. How could Jesus be the literal, physical son of both David and Abraham? You can only have one biological father. So, obviously you are trying to make the words "uiou" and "tou ho" very limited in meaning when in reality that just isn't so. Matthew uses the term "egennhsen" for begets when referring to the actual paternity of Isaac. Genealogy in Matthew: Jesus' legal line of inheritance. Genealogy in Luke: Jesus' physical line of humanity. Two parents, two lines--one the physical and one the legal (since physical paternity could never be proven back then.) Edited by Natassia - 24 August 2009 at 8:57am |
|
|
You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (John 5:39-40)
|
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
Shasta'sAunt
Female Islam Senior Member 
Joined: 29 March 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1930 |
Posted: 24 August 2009 at 6:19pm |
|
Originally posted by Natassia
@ BMZ Son-in-law? Whose son-in-law? God's? Joseph is Heli's son-in-law. Therefore, the geneology in Luke is that of MARY. Name one reputable Biblical theologian or historian who actually believes that the genealogy in Luke belongs to Mary, and their thesis as to why.
|
|
|
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
Shasta'sAunt
Female Islam Senior Member
Joined: 29 March 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1930 |
Posted: 24 August 2009 at 6:30pm |
|
Natassia,
Thusfar you have based your arguments on what the Bible doesn't state more than what it actually does state. Jesus is God because he never said he wasn't. Jesus should be worshipped because he never said not to. Mary is of the tribe of Judah because Elisabeth's kinship wasn't fully explained. The geneology in Luke is Mary's because the Bible doesn't state that Heli wasn't Mary's father or because God ordered the geneologies to be through the male line but didn't state that it could not be through the female line....
I think God made it very clear that the prophesies would be fulfilled through the seed of David, through the Davidic Line, from the lineage of David. Nowhere did God state which wives or cincubines would be involved.
"Adam was not the literal, physical son of God, and yet the same phrase is used there as it is used for Joseph and Heli."
If Jesus was the literal son of God, why couldn't Adam be the literal son of God. It is written in the Bible, after all....
Edited by Shasta'sAunt - 24 August 2009 at 6:40pm |
|
|
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
Shasta'sAunt
Female Islam Senior Member
Joined: 29 March 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1930 |
Posted: 24 August 2009 at 7:34pm |
|
"Genealogy in Matthew: Jesus' legal line of inheritance. Genealogy in Luke: Jesus' physical line of humanity." O.K. Let's say for a minute that this is correct. Both genealogies list Jeconiah/Shealtiel/Salathiel:Jeremiah 22:24As I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;
25And I will give thee into the hand of them that seek thy life, and into the hand of them whose face thou fearest, even into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans. 26And I will cast thee out, and thy mother that bare thee, into another country, where ye were not born; and there shall ye die. 27But to the land whereunto they desire to return, thither shall they not return. 28Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? 29O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. 30Thus saith the LORD, Write ye 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. So, God cursed Jeconiah and made him childless, yet here he and his son are listed in both genealogies.
I'm sure there's some convoluted logic to explain how a childless man whose seed, "legal and physical", would never prosper, sitting on the throne of David and ruling Judah, somehow made it into Jesus' "legal and physical" lineage.
Just how did a cursed childless man: "for no man of his seed shall prosper" have a son and somehow manage to be related "legally and physically" to Jesus?
Edited by Shasta'sAunt - 24 August 2009 at 7:37pm |
|
|
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
BMZ
Moderator Group
Joined: 03 April 2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1852 |
Posted: 25 August 2009 at 2:04am |
|
Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt 30Thus saith the LORD, Write ye 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. So, God cursed Jeconiah and made him childless, yet here he and his son are listed in both genealogies.
I'm sure there's some convoluted logic to explain how a childless man whose seed, "legal and physical", would never prosper, sitting on the throne of David and ruling Judah, somehow made it into Jesus' "legal and physical" lineage.
Just how did a cursed childless man: "for no man of his seed shall prosper" have a son and somehow manage to be related "legally and physically" to Jesus?
Exactly. When God cut that man off, he should not have been included in the genealogies. Both genealogies are wrong. It is totally absurd to have a genealogy for Jesus, when he was born only of a woman. I consider both genealogies a blasphemy and also an insult to Jesus. Salaams BMZ |
|
|
Shasta's Aunt: "Well, there's the difference you see. The Bible was written by man about God, The Quran was revealed to man by God."
|
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
BMZ
Moderator Group
Joined: 03 April 2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1852 |
Posted: 25 August 2009 at 2:29am |
|
@ Natassia
Have you noticed the biggest blunder in the two genealogies given by Matthew and Luke? If not, just look at how they start from David: Matthew starts with Solomon as David's son, while Luke starts with Nathan as David's son. So, Matthew traces Joseph's line through Solomon and Luke traces Joseph's line through Nathan. Cheers BMZ |
|
|
Shasta's Aunt: "Well, there's the difference you see. The Bible was written by man about God, The Quran was revealed to man by God."
|
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
honeto
Senior Member
Joined: 20 March 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2340 |
Posted: 27 January 2010 at 7:29am |
|
......bottom line, we cannot be sure of anything as true or not form the Bible because of these inconsistencies.
Hasan |
|
|
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"
|
|
|
IP Logged |
|
| << Prev Page of 64 Next >> |
| |
||
Forum Jump |
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
|
Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com
Advertisement:
