Jesus lineage could you please explain it to me

[Terry McDermott]

The book of Matthew does describe Jesus as a King, and Old Testament prophecy states that a king and a savior would come from David. So the geneology.

The book of Luke does describe Jesus as the Son of Man. Old Testament Prophecy states that he would be born of a virgin. So you have a geneology here as well.

 

[ghendricks63]

The book of Matthew does describe Jesus as a King, and Old Testament prophecy states that a king and a savior would come from David. So the geneology.

The book of Luke does describe Jesus as the Son of Man. Old Testament Prophecy states that he would be born of a virgin. So you have a geneology here as well.

In all four gospels Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of Man repeatedly. All 4 gospels also record that He was born of a virgin. This is not a unique trait of Luke that explains the different geneology. Jesus Kingship is also established in Luke.

 

[Terry McDermott]

Well this what I believe and this is how I understand the scripture and the geneology. And I have a right to my opinion on how I see the scriptures.

 

[ghendricks63]

Well this what I believe and this is how I understand the scripture and the geneology. And I have a right to my opinion on how I see the scriptures.

Of course you have a right to your opinion as do I. I don't believe that was ever in question. This is a discussion forum where the purpose is to share these opinions with each other and hopefully learn from each other as well.

My opinion is that the bible is not inerrant because God did not intend it to be that way. I have that opinion based on studying the bible for many many years as well as what I believe to be His demonstrated method of interaction with His people. I do not base it on just the geneologies of course but they are compelling to me.

 

[Terry McDermott]

Mine is also based on studying the bible. And it I have also studied the scriptures for many years as well. This is how I understand what the scriptures and what the geneologies are stating.

 

[ghendricks63]

Mine is also based on studying the bible. And it I have also studied the scriptures for many years as well. This is how I understand what the scriptures and what the geneologies are stating.

Yes I have no doubt. I am not insulting you when I state I do not arrive at my conclusions about inerrancy lightly but rather through careful study. In fact very sincere Christians can and do disagree with each other. Please don't interpret my comments as claiming to be MORE knowledgeable. I am only stating that I am not convinced that this explains the different geneologies for a couple of reasons. One is that there is no mention at all of Joseph's father in Luke as really being Mary's father...none. So that still leaves it as a point of conjecture. Secondly I do not believe the difference of 42 generations from Abnraham to Jesus in one and about 56 in the other can be explained so easily either. Yes I do understand that if they were to different paths there could be some difference in generation count...but not likely this much.

BTW - I do fully understand that your explanation is completely accepted by pretty much all who believe scripture to be inerrant.

 

[IndigoG]

I don't believe the idea of scripture being inerrant is a 'man-made concept' because:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Tim 3:16-17.
If it is 'God-breathed', then to say it wrong, is to say that God got it wrong.
Also, I've just been reading about God's wisdom in Job. How can we, as created beings, assume our worldly wisdom is greater than God's divine wisdom for placing these versions of the genealogy in the scripture.

 

[ittarter]

I don't believe the idea of scripture being inerrant is a 'man-made concept' because:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Tim 3:16-17.
If it is 'God-breathed', then to say it wrong, is to say that God got it wrong.
Also, I've just been reading about God's wisdom in Job. How can we, as created beings, assume our worldly wisdom is greater than God's divine wisdom for placing these versions of the genealogy in the scripture.

You are guilty of two logical fallacies.

a. equivocation. "Scripture" in 2 Timothy refers to something other than what you mean when you use the word. Clearly so, because a complete Bible was not even available at the time.

b. circular argument. Scripture is inerrant because scripture says it is inerrant, and since scripture is inerrant, when it says it is inerrant it cannot be in error! Right? Duh...

You're right. If we ASSUME God put the genealogies in the first and third gospels as we have them now, then it's pretty silly to question him. However, people who habitually question what people tell them (even if they tell them GOD said it) will not start with the same assumptions you have.

 

[ghendricks63]

I don't believe the idea of scripture being inerrant is a 'man-made concept' because:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Tim 3:16-17.
If it is 'God-breathed', then to say it wrong, is to say that God got it wrong.
Also, I've just been reading about God's wisdom in Job. How can we, as created beings, assume our worldly wisdom is greater than God's divine wisdom for placing these versions of the genealogy in the scripture.

I truly understand your position with this issue because I used to struggle with this question myself. But let me ask you a couple of questions.

First...What does the term God-breathed mean to you? I have always been taught that this means God literally controlled the pen to paper so to speak. However, if we consider God-breathed to be the communication between God and man then it makes more sense as it reflects the intimate fellowship involved during the inspiration. This does not necessarily imply that the man would have written down that experience with God like perfection. God's pattern, repeated time and again in the bible, is to work through imperfect men and there is no reason to believe He would not do the same with scripture. In fact to say the evidence suggests that God never intended it to be perfect in the first place not only does NOT imply God got it wrong...but would in fact be more consistant with scriptural evidence and traditional God-man interaction.

Second...Of course the reference to "all scripture" would not in fact have included the passage from 2nd Timothy as Paul would not have referred to his 2nd letter to his young friend as part of that "scripture". We have added the full canon to this scripture and determine it is included by implication. But Paul would certainly not have meant this when he wrote this passage so we must be careful about extrapolating beyond Paul's initial intent.

Third...I believe the insistance on the literal inerrancy of the bible creates a type of idol for many believers. God's desire according scripture is to indwel the believer and literally commune with us in and through our spirit. This Spirit of Truth guides us, provides knowledge of right and wrong through our conscience, and leads us into all truth. But by elevating the bible to a virtual member of the trinity we have substituted it for the work of the Spirit in our lives. Much like with the golden calf, we bow down to a substitute for God and seek to develop this intimate relationship with a thing...rather than with God Himself. I believe this is one of the most compelling reasons why God chose NOT to give us a perfect book. He knew that if we thought IT was perfect...it would become an idol to us. Now that I no longer feel compelled to reconcile what can be understood a simple man made errors (none of which invalidate any major doctrine or truth) I am not conflicted over the disconnect between what I study and read compared to what I have always been taught to believe. (Perfection)

I believe God gave us the bible in a very reliable form so we could learn about Him and His plan and purpose for all mankind. In fact...once I let go of my insistance in maintaining biblical perfection I found the bible to be a beautiful gift from God that I relate to more. Indeed I love the bible more now than I ever did. The other benefit of putting the bible back in proper perspective is that I am learning to build a more satisfying and beneficial relationship with His Spirit.

This was a difficult journey for me...one I resisted for many years. But I can truly say I am closer to God and love my bible more since I have put it back into it's proper place...out of the God-Head. The bible should point us to God...but should never become a god.

 

[IndigoG]

You are guilty of two logical fallacies.

a. equivocation. "Scripture" in 2 Timothy refers to something other than what you mean when you use the word. Clearly so, because a complete Bible was not even available at the time.

b. circular argument. Scripture is inerrant because scripture says it is inerrant, and since scripture is inerrant, when it says it is inerrant it cannot be in error! Right? Duh...

You're right. If we ASSUME God put the genealogies in the first and third gospels as we have them now, then it's pretty silly to question him. However, people who habitually question what people tell them (even if they tell them GOD said it) will not start with the same assumptions you have.

Firstly, I believe that Paul's letters are included in the meaning of scripture. I think that this is how the first century Christians understood it and I think Paul knew it when he was writing them.

Secondly, I agree that is circular logic. I take the bible as my highest authority - above my own wisdom. If I needed to use my own wisdom to decide what parts of the bible to accept, I wouldn't need the bible at all.

 

[ittarter]

Firstly, I believe that Paul's letters are included in the meaning of scripture. I think that this is how the first century Christians understood it and I think Paul knew it when he was writing them.

3:15 contradicts you, doesn't it? You [Timothy] have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood. I know it's not an air-tight case, but since I can't think of any actual EVIDENCE to suggest the author of 2 Timothy considers his own letter to be God's word to the entire church until the end of the age, the weight would fall in the other direction. If we are trying to be objective, I mean.

Can you provide any evidence for your suggestion here? Or would you state that it is conjectured solely by necessity, to avoid the earlier logical fallacy I pointed out?

Secondly, I agree that is circular logic. I take the bible as my highest authority - above my own wisdom. If I needed to use my own wisdom to decide what parts of the bible to accept, I wouldn't need the bible at all.

I used to be like-minded. One day I realized I had to decide between being true to myself and being true, not to God, but to an idea I had grown up with, an idea that I wasn't allowed to question (by definition!). A friend helped me leap over that great chasm. It was frightening. Six years later, though, I have no regrets. It's not as bad over here as people made it out to be.

Anyway, we don't need to carry on with this conversation, but I felt constrained to point out the fallacies, since you say you came from to your position by "studying the scriptures," and in fact no study of the scriptures is necessary to conclude what you have concluded. It is not based on what the Bible says, but rather is simply a set of assumptions you bring with you when you study the Bible. (And I think you need to be okay with that. No one starts with a clean slate.)

 

[ittarter]

Third...I believe the insistance on the literal inerrancy of the bible creates a type of idol for many believers.

Nah. That's like the Jewish folks saying Jesus is an idol for Christians. For Christians there is no meaningful distinction between Jesus and God. Both are perfect. For biblical literalists there is no meaningful distinction between the Bible and God's word. All revelation from God is perfect.

 

[ghendricks63]

Nah. That's like the Jewish folks saying Jesus is an idol for Christians. For Christians there is no meaningful distinction between Jesus and God. Both are perfect. For biblical literalists there is no meaningful distinction between the Bible and God's word. All revelation from God is perfect.

Uhm...yeah I get that they make no distinction. That is precisely why I said it becomes an idol...they place more importance on communing with with a book than with the living God.

 

[ittarter]

Uhm...yeah I get that they make no distinction. That is precisely why I said it becomes an idol...they place more importance on communing with with a book than with the living God.

That's my point. That's a false distinction, unless you are standing outside, so to speak, looking in. "Communing with a book" is not a thought a literalist is able to recognize. It's like saying I don't care for Shakespeare, I just like his plays. Or go back to my example of Jesus in a Jewish perspective. Ever talked to an Orthodox Christian about icons? Maybe you should venture over to the TAW forum and ask some questions about the use of religious imagery in worship.

Even ancient "idolatry" as described by the Hebrew Bible never actually involved confusion between the symbol and the symbolized. The prophets speak of it pejoratively in that way merely to express their belief that there WAS no God behind THEIR idols, and THEREFORE they were simply worshiping wood, stone, etc. That is their unique premise, namely, monotheism. If the Philistines had been monotheists, they could have made the same case against the silly Israelites worshiping the ark of the covenant or the temple or whatever.

In your case, because you believe (as I do) that the Bible is not God's inerrant word, the accusation of idolatry makes sense; however, it will never make sense to a literalist.

Hope that makes sense. I was brief to a fault in my earlier post, but I have no interest in further discussing what I believe to be utterly conclusive. If you want any clarification on the issue please PM me.

 

[ghendricks63]

That's my point. That's a false distinction, unless you are standing outside, so to speak, looking in. "Communing with a book" is not a thought a literalist is able to recognize. It's like saying I don't care for Shakespeare, I just like his plays. Or go back to my example of Jesus in a Jewish perspective. Ever talked to an Orthodox Christian about icons? Maybe you should venture over to the TAW forum and ask some questions about the use of religious imagery in worship.

Even ancient "idolatry" as described by the Hebrew Bible never actually involved confusion between the symbol and the symbolized. The prophets speak of it pejoratively in that way merely to express their belief that there WAS no God behind THEIR idols, and THEREFORE they were simply worshiping wood, stone, etc. That is their unique premise, namely, monotheism. If the Philistines had been monotheists, they could have made the same case against the silly Israelites worshiping the ark of the covenant or the temple or whatever.

In your case, because you believe (as I do) that the Bible is not God's inerrant word, the accusation of idolatry makes sense; however, it will never make sense to a literalist.

Hope that makes sense. I was brief to a fault in my earlier post, but I have no interest in further discussing what I believe to be utterly conclusive. If you want any clarification on the issue please PM me.

Yes I agree with your points here completely with one exception...that it will never make sense to a literalist. I once was a literalist...therefore I hold out hope that with respectful doalogue we might reach one or two.

Take care.

 

[Terry McDermott]

Some reason I was being blamed for thinking the Bible was a man made concept. I want it known I never made such a statement.

And I do not appreciate words being put into my mouth.

 

[ittarter]

Some reason I was being blamed for thinking the Bible was a man made concept. I want it known I never made such a statement.

And I do not appreciate words being put into my mouth.

Indigo wasn't saying you said that. He was supporting you against your opponents.

 

[Terry McDermott]

This is not what I am talking about. In one post when I explained my beliefs about the lineages in Matthew and Luke Someone made assumptions on my behalf, and this was not appreciated.

They may not agree with me, but to say that my opinion was not bible based was uncalled for. And never did I say the scriptures were not God inspired.

 

[ittarter]

This is not what I am talking about. In one post when I explained my beliefs about the lineages in Matthew and Luke Someone made assumptions on my behalf, and this was not appreciated.

They may not agree with me, but to say that my opinion was not bible based was uncalled for. And never did I say the scriptures were not God inspired.

It's annoying that you won't even say what, who or where. If this is intended for one person, PM them. If it's attended for everyone reading the thread, don't allude to some assumption someone made. Just say it.

 

[Terry McDermott]

You are not my boss and you dont tell me what to post. I don's care if you find it annoying or not.