Genealogy Of Jesus - Page 2 of 2

QUOTE   Although Jesus was not the - Page 2 - The Bible Revealed - Posted: 19th Nov, 2005 - 8:06am

Text RPG Play Text RPG ?
 

+  1 2 
Posts: 9 - Views: 1638
Post Date: 19th Nov, 2005 - 8:06am / Post ID: #

Genealogy Of Jesus
A Friend

Genealogy Of Jesus - Page 2

QUOTE
 
Although Jesus was not the literal son of Joseph, he was essentially adopted as his firstborn son, and therefore would still have claim to Joseph's birthright. 


Actually, Jesus had other brothers that would have been blood to Joseph and thus gain the birthright of the first born son. The Bible has several stories in which the adopted or non-blood son is not given the same privileges has the first born blood son. An adopted son, by Jewish tradition would never inherit the throne of a king unless his other children died, and sometimes not even then. In Jewish law, being of someones bloodline, such as a king, was imperative. Though, despite these set in writing ancient laws, the kings of Israel were not always descended from father to son.

Oddly enough, the virgin birth may not have even been necessary.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

But the word translated into virgin is Almah(hebrew), meaning young woman or maiden.

In the rest of the Bible, the hebrew word bethuwlah(hebrew) is used to describe an unused young woman, or untouched woman. The translation was incorrect by all jewish standards. It would make sense that the Virgin birth was added later to match what they translated from prophecy. But if the prophecy is not translated correctly, then the fulfillment is either false or incorrect as well. But without a virgin birth, the Christ loses his divinity factor and looks more like a normal man.

That being the defining factor for my view on this subject. Jesus could have been from the line of David and was not likely born of a virgin. His geneology, thou different in both Gospels, could still hold up. Discrepancies between the two backup the idea that Matthew and Luke were written from other sources and put together, not by one account from one person, but by hand me down stories. With the passing of one story to the next, the line of Jesus changed as do all stories told by mouth, until they were written down by the two authors of two gospels.

I included the source that set it out the easiest. However, you can find many jewish sites and books that back it up as well on your own.

https://www.gospelassemblyfree.com/facts/virgin2.htm

Reconcile Edited: konquererz on 19th Nov, 2005 - 8:07am

Sponsored Links:
+  1 2 

 
> TOPIC: Genealogy Of Jesus
 

▲ TOP


International Discussions Coded by: BGID®
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Copyright © 1999-2024
Disclaimer Privacy Report Errors Credits
This site uses Cookies to dispense or record information with regards to your visit. By continuing to use this site you agree to the terms outlined in our Cookies used here: Privacy / Disclaimer,