The Birth and Nature of Christ

Without getting bogged down in a discussion about the 'sin nature' (my view is closer to that of the Eastern Fathers and to classical Wesleyan-Arminians than to Augustine), I'll simply comment on the geneology question. It's my understanding that both geneologies--in Luke and Matthew--are Joseph's rather than Mary's. The difference has to do with Joseph's legal father versus natural father, and I believe one of the church Father's first mentioned this (can't remember who). At any rate, I read an article on this a while back (and had even heard that earlier in a bible study about 7 years ago). If I'm not mistaken the same article mentioned that Mary's parents Joachim and Anna were also descendents of David (I believe the Protoevangelium of James also mentions this, but I'll have to double check) and that Mary and Joseph are distant cousins.

I'll get back with you if I can learn otherwise...

 

What if in Luke the parentheses which was placed by translators was placed incorrectly and it should of been placed.
And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, (being as was supposed the son of Joseph)

which was the son of Eli..

which would be saying that Jesus was the son of Heli.

Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, ..who was the son of Heli,"

Neither Matt or Luke ever says that Joseph begat Jesus, does it?

It says Jacob begat Joseph who was the husband of Mary, who gave birth to Jesus. Why did it not say "Joseph begat Jesus"??

The Jewish schools who taught the Talmud torah on 77:4 says that Heli was the father of Mary, if what I read is correct.

Is there anyone who has the actual reading of the Talmud torah 77:4, so we could read it for ourselves??

BBob,

​

 

Here's a Wikipedia article for what it's worth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus_Christ

I'll see what else I can find

 

I can give you a quote from the Talmud, but "Talmud Torah" does not exist as the name of a Talmudic tractate. Check your source to see if there is a different tractate name.

 

I think Eusebius covers this in some depth in his Church History but I can't remember what he says Will try and look it up when I get home

 

There are no parenthesis in the original Greek text.
What if in Luke the parentheses which was placed by translators was placed incorrectly and it should of been placed.
And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, (being as was supposed the son of Joseph)

1. Num 27:8, "Therefore, tell the Israelites; If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall let his heritage pass on to his daughter."
2. Num 36:6-7, "This is what the Lord commands with regard to the daughters of Salphahad: They may marry anyone they please, provided they marry into a clan of their ancestral tribe, so that no heritage of the Israelites will pass from one tribe to another, but all the Israelites will retain their own ancestral heritage."

1. Matthew gives us the legal line from Abraham through David and Solomon to Joseph, Jesus' legal father (Matthew 1:1-17). Luke, a physician, gives us his genealogy from Adam to David-but then takes a surprising turn through the second surviving son of Bathsheba, Nathan, and brings us to Heli, the father of Mary (Luke 3:23-28; Jerusalem Talmud, Chag. 77,4). The specific exceptions noted in the Torah regarding the daughters of Zelophehad are anticipatory of this situation (Numbers 26:33; 27:1-11; 36:2-12).

BBob, gotta go to the Gymn, be back later.

 

Joseph's sperm cell could not have been used as Jesus would have been fully human.

Mary's egg could not have been used as Scripture clearly shows all men born to women are unclean.

John Calvin said:

Albert Barnes:

 

Newsflash: Jesus was fully human; He wasn't half-human like Mr Spock. He was also fully God.

 

News Flash... Had Jesus been of Joseph's sperm cell and Mary's egg, He would not have been God at all.

 

Ugh. There is not a single Biblical passage that indicates with no doubt that damnable sin is passed genetically. Please stop saying that there is, because there is not. Jesus would not have been blemished had an egg been used, since dambable sin is not passed down genetically. You and many others are reading your theological concept of original sin on texts that don't in fact support this.

To Brother Bob: I have to go to the library today, so I'll look up the passage you have indicated. "Chag." is short for "Chagigah" by the way.

 

Keep telling yourself that, cowboymatt, and you will never see the truth that is written in the Word of God.

 

Don't know about you or anyone else, but I read about sin in the bible, and have never read some old texts about it.
Just how do you think each person inherits the sin nature?

 

This is from the other thread, and it's still an open question to Ann,

 

John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb, and yet Christ still had to die for him. Why? Because he was born with the sin nature. All flesh is under that curse and susceptible to sin

There was only one flesh born on this earth that could not sin. And all other flesh hung Him on a cross.

 

Searching through my many books, I cannot find one instance of Abbott, Barnes, Calvin, Clarke, Bounds, Easton, Edersheim, Fausset, Finney, Osborn, Sir Robert Anderson, Smith, Spurgeon, or Torrey making mention of Mary's egg in any of their commentaries.


Where did the doctrine of Mary's egg originate? Certainly not the Word of God. Nor from any of those listed above.

 

Clarence Larkin - Rightly Dividing The Word; 1920