Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: Where Islam & Christian Agree and Differ(Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 64 Next >>
Author Message
Natassia
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 16 July 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 177
bullet Posted: 24 August 2009 at 8:08am

@ BMZ

Son-in-law? Whose son-in-law? God's?

What has a son-in-law to do anything with the two conflicting genealogies in the gospels?

Show me the logic, if there is any, please.

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 IP Logged
Natassia
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 16 July 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 177
bullet 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-THE

This 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   SCROLL

genesews   genesis   n_ Gen Sg f   OF-generating   of-lineage

ihsou   iEsous   n_ Gen Sg m   OF-JESUS

cristou   christos  n_ Gen Sg m   ANOINTED   Christ

uiou   huios   n_ Gen Sg m   SON

dauid   dauid   ni proper   of-DAVID   of-David

uiou   huios   n_ Gen Sg m   SON

abraam   abraam   ni proper   of-ABRAHAM   of-Abraham

1:2 abraam   abraam   ni proper   ABRAHAM

egennhsen   gennaO   vi Aor Act 3 Sg   generatES   begets

ton   ho   t_ Acc Sg m   THE

isaak   isaak   ni proper   ISAAC

Being 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 IP Logged
Shasta'sAunt
Female  Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 29 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1930
bullet Posted: 24 August 2009 at 6:19pm
Originally posted by Natassia

@ BMZ

Son-in-law? Whose son-in-law? God's?

What has a son-in-law to do anything with the two conflicting genealogies in the gospels?

Show me the logic, if there is any, please.

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 IP Logged
Shasta'sAunt
Female  Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 29 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1930
bullet 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 IP Logged
Shasta'sAunt
Female  Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 29 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1930
bullet 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:
 
Generation
  Mat 1:16-2   Luk 3:23-38
1
  Jesus   Jesus
2
  Joseph   Joseph
3
  Jacob   Heli
4
  Matthan   Matthat
5
  Eleazar   Levi
6
  Eliud   Melchi
7
  Achim   Janna
8
  Sadoc   Joseph
9
  Azor   Mattathias
10
  Eliakim   Amos
11
  Abiud   Naum
12
  Zorobabel   Esli
13
  Salathiel   Nagge
14
  Jechonias   Maath
15
  Josias   Mattathias
16
  Amon   Semei
17
  Manasses   Joseph
18
  Ezekias   Juda
19
  Achaz   Joanna
20
  Joatham   Rhesa
21
  Ozias   Zorobabel
22
  Joram   Salathiel
23
  Josaphat   Neri
24
  Asa   Melchi
25
  Abia   Addi
26
  Roboam   Cosam
27
  Solomon   Elmodam
28
  David   Er
29
  Jesse   Jose
30
  Obed   Eliezer
31
  Booz   Jorim
32
  Salmon   Matthat
33
  Naasson   Levi
34
  Aminadab   Simeon
35
  Aram   Juda
36
  Esrom   Joseph
37
  Phares   Jonan
38
  Judas   Eliakim
39
  Jacob   Melea
40
  Isaac   Menan
41
  Abraham   Mattatha
42
  Nathan
43
  David
44
  Jesse
45
  Obed
46
  Booz
47
  Salmon
48
  Naasson
49
  Aminadab
50
  Aram
51
  Esrom
52
  Phares
53
  Juda
54
  Jacob
55
  Isaac
56
  Abraham
57
  Thara
58
  Nachor
59
  Saruch
60
  Ragau
61
  Phalec
62
  Heber
63
  Sala
64
  Cainan
65
  Arphaxad
66
  Sem
67
  Noe
68
  Lamech
69
  Mathusala
70
  Enoch
71
  Jared
72
  Maleleel
73
  Cainan
74
  Enos
75
  Seth
76
  Adam
77
  God
 
 
 
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 IP Logged
BMZ
 
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 03 April 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1852
bullet 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 IP Logged
BMZ
 
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 03 April 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1852
bullet 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 IP Logged
honeto
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2444
bullet 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 IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 64 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

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

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com