The nature of Christ

HP: Thanks BD17. You still have me thinking. As I have time I am going to pursue your thoughts. You said “ Joseph, the father of Jesus, was one of Jehoiakim's descendants (through Jeconiah).” As I read the lineage of Joseph in Matt. as it is given, the name is Jechonias, not Jechoniah as you have implied that could not have been the rightful heir to the throne, IF your assumption is correct about the curse extending to ALL his posterity for ever. I am having trouble here making the connection as you see it. Do you have any references that might make the connection you see better understood? Again, I cannot see the connection between Joseph and Jehoiakim that you see, thus far anyway. If you have already shown the connection, just point me back to it. Thanks!

 

Thanks HOG. All I can say is the ones responsible for those links sure missed it.

 

HP: I believe we have covered the issues that would clearly indicate where I feel the author of those links missed, it, but give me some more time to study. I want to go back over BD17's conclusions carefully to see if in fact we might have missed something of importance. I have to work through all the distinctions between the spelling of names in the Hebrew and in the GK, and the name changes etc. that are mentioned. BD17 may in fact not missed anything, still he has drawn the wrong conclusion as I see it in eliminating any of Joseph's posterity from being a rightful heir to the throne due to the curse mentioned in Jer.

Scripture states, in establishing Christ's link to the throne, that Joseph was in the line that established it. It may take me a while to get back. I might be a little slower at this than all of you.

 

I stand amazed at the depth the depth and extreme on will go to find support for the consistency of ones presuppositions. If one is bound to a presupposition, there is logic nor reason that could possibly alter it, for the mind in such a state has committed a logical fallacy by means of asumming somthing to be truth that has not properly been esatblished. The total duty of the intellect and ones pursuits holding to such presuppositions, is to find support for the accepted presuppositional notion and to line up all other beliefs so as to be seen consistent with the presuppositions the mind has established as an unshakable starting point of their thinking. If one is ever to come to the truth, ones presuppositions will have to be addressed and laid bare to the light of Scripture, logic, and reason.

With that stated. I understand fully that unless the dogma of original sin is fairly examined, there lies no hope of any real success in freeing ourselves from the support one finds for such notions, or freedom from the false theories establish to develop a consistent theology with that false notion of original sin. None the less I will attempt to address the issues such as the one concerning the proclamation of God concerning Jehoiakim in order to expose the unscriptural and illogical course some have embarked upon.

Scripture reveals some clear statement for the open and honest mind. The genealogy of Christ is traced back through the lineage of His earthly father Joseph. Allow any fair minded individual, unencumbered by theological presuppositions, read the two accounts in Matt. And Luke, and no other possible solution could be revealed to the mind other than it is just as it states, Joseph’s biological heritage is indeed connected to the Messiah of the world, Jesus Christ. The genealogy of Christ in Matt. simply ends with these words. “ 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” Luke begins his genealogy of Christ with these words, “Lu 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,”

There are other truths in Scripture that cannot be understated or overlooked either. According to Scripture Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, and Joseph had not known her, nor would he until after the birth of Christ. We are told that the Holy Spirit implanted the seed into the womb of Mary, although no indication is given in those passages as to the nature of the seed or to whom the seed was biologically tied if any. There are numerous indications of the origin of the seed implanted within Mary, two of which are found in the NT.
Ga 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
In Hebrews we are told “Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.” The OT gives us a picture of the nature of Christ in this prophetic utterance. “ De 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.”

Why would any try and refute the clear testimony of the nature of Christ and the physical genealogical ties to the human nature of which He partook? Only those with a clear agenda in support of the failed and unscriptural notions that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh as opposed to the will, known as the doctrine of original sin.

With this overview given of the issues and presuppositions affecting the nature of Christ, I will try to address the issue that has been raised concerning what is commonly denoted as the curse of Jehoiakim. I will address that issue under a new thread entitled “The Proclamation of God Concerning Jehoiakim.”

 

Would there be any on this list that would refute the belief that Scripture sets forth that indeed Christ took upon Himself the “seed of Abraham” and that being the definite seed of a man although implanted in the womb of the virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit?

 

HP: Forgive me BD17. I must have missed the Scripture that states that Mary is the tie to the throne of David. Who knows, you may have found a GK scholar that translates ‘Joseph’ as really meaning ‘Mary.’ That is an interesting thought indeed.

Does the possibility even exist in your mind that God might have set aside any proclamation He once made due to the obedience of someone in the lineage subsequent to Jehoiakim, just as He did by saving Noah and his family after proclaiming that He was going to destroy the entire world that he had made? I am not asking right now if you believe that happened, I am just asking you if the ‘possibility’ could exist that it ‘could have’ happened.

 

HP: Sure God decided to save Noah before He destroyed the world. What other deduction could one possibly make seeing Noah was saved?? If he had not, Noah would have had to drown and then been brought back to life.

You sure use a strange dictionary. Beget does not mean simply a physical descendant, it means to “To procreate, as a father or sire. To generate” (Webster)

Joseph did not sire Jesus. The Holy Spirit did the begetting. Joseph, in and of himself, did nothing to generate or ‘produce as an effect’ Jesus. This in no way expresses or implies that the one doing the begetting, i.e., the Holy Spirit, could not have implanted the DNA seed of Joseph, a direct heir of the throne of David within the womb of Mary, just as Scripture indicates by telling us that Jesus indeed was of the seed of Abraham, David, and Joseph.

 

HP: What good is it to tell one that their logic is flawed if in fact you never set forth the evidence to prove it false? I am listening closely to Scripture. God that tells us in Scripture that Jesus was related to Joseph physically by the two distinct genealogies given, as well as the exceedingly clear statement that He was of the ‘seed of Abraham.’ It is your interpretation of Scripture, tranposing the word Joseph into 'Mary', obviously driven by the false presupposition that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh and not the will that I do not believe is founded upon reason, Scripture, logic, or experience.

 

HP: And how are you going to establish that? First, one being a Jew is not all about a race. It is primarily about a religion. There are black Jews and white Jews, none of which claim any physical tie necessarily between each other. I had this explained to me clearly by a black North African Jew.

What do you see as the “Jewishness” of a person, and how is that established by the mother??