Lineage

[truth_not_allowed]

Why does the bible trace lineage through Joseph when his "seed" has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus?

I am posting a link that discusses the possible nonexistence of Jesus..... I actually question this because of this fact of lineage.
Why go to such trouble in recording lineage of a fabricated character, and then make such a drastic mistake in doing so?
Does the mistake prove an existence of such a figure, or just a poor attempt at fabrication?

Three parts, the question pertains to the ending of this series, I thought the setup was important to the question, so keep an open mind through all three.

 

[truth_not_allowed]

part one

youtube.com/watch?v=LRJlVBQkSSI

 

[truth_not_allowed]

part two

youtube.com/watch?v=ncj_Y3POK24

 

[truth_not_allowed]

part three

youtube.com/watch?v=eDGMV4D__4I

 

[Dark_Lite]

Zeitgeist is about as reliable as a Dan Brown book for factual history.

That being said, the lineage of Jesus through Joseph is likely meant to be more spiritual rather than biological.

 

[truth_not_allowed]

Zeitgeist is about as reliable as a Dan Brown book for factual history.

That being said, the lineage of Jesus through Joseph is likely meant to be more spiritual rather than biological.

The great thing about facts is that if someone makes a false claim concerning them, it is very easy to debunk those claims.

There are multiple points in this, pick one and show it to be ridiculous and the entire concept collapses....... You have only succeeded in making a claim concerning reliability and nothing more, showing yourself less than reliable. You then continue by saying "likely meant"..... Why go to such great lengths to trace lineage if it only pertains to spirituality? Did Jesus acquire his spirituality through Joseph?
Zeitgeist never once had to make excuses for something that clearly doesn't make sense!

 

[Dark_Lite]

The great thing about facts is that if someone makes a false claim concerning them, it is very easy to debunk those claims.

There are multiple points in this, pick one and show it to be ridiculous and the entire concept collapses....... You have only succeeded in making a claim concerning reliability and nothing more, showing yourself less than reliable.

This thread is not about disproving Zeitgeist. That has been done on the internet numerous times already. The one time I watched a tiny bit of Zeitgeist, I remember seeing the part about the connection between Jesus and Horus. They tried to make a link between the word "Hours" and "Horus" and thus to the Zodiac and a bunch of other crap. 5 minutes spent looking up the etymology of the word "hour" disproved that. It's not rocket science.

Zeitgeist is not a reliable source. It's no better than conspiracy theories or most creationist claims.

You then continue by saying "likely meant"..... Why go to such great lengths to trace lineage if it only pertains to spirituality? Did Jesus acquire his spirituality through Joseph?

I didn't say spirituality. I said spiritual.

Anyway, it's because the prophecy was that the Messiah is supposed to be from the House of David. Joseph was a descendant of David. Jesus is not biologically related to Joseph, but Joseph is his adopted father. You should be asking about that, and not some claim you saw in Zeitgeist.

 

[nhisname]

Why does the bible trace lineage through Joseph when his "seed" has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus?

I am posting a link that discusses the possible nonexistence of Jesus..... I actually question this because of this fact of lineage.
Why go to such trouble in recording lineage of a fabricated character, and then make such a drastic mistake in doing so?
Does the mistake prove an existence of such a figure, or just a poor attempt at fabrication?

Three parts, the question pertains to the ending of this series, I thought the setup was important to the question, so keep an open mind through all three.

Joseph was a descendent of King David. The Missiah was promised through his lentage. Mary was a descendent also of King David.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Mary was a descendent also of King David.

That's news to me, and rather interesting. It's likely that I just never knew about it. Do you have a source for this claim so I can go read up on it more? If this is the case, then Joseph's lineage doesn't really matter that much since I believe lineage is passed through the females in Judaism.

 

[truth_not_allowed]

That's news to me, and rather interesting. It's likely that I just never knew about it. Do you have a source for this claim so I can go read up on it more? If this is the case, then Joseph's lineage doesn't really matter that much since I believe lineage is passed through the females in Judaism.

As it is seen that the bible is the word of God, why does God include something that doesn't matter that much?
If it was the intent to prove something concerning Jesus, how is it that God does a poor job in doing so?
Does the bible even mention Mary and her lineage?

Sounds like more excuses!

 

[Dark_Lite]

As it is seen that the bible is the word of God, why does God include something that doesn't matter that much?
If it was the intent to prove something concerning Jesus, how is it that God does a poor job in doing so?

I don't even know what you're asking.

Does the bible even mention Mary and her lineage?

To an extent, yes.

Sounds like more excuses!

I don't think you really know where you're going with this besides trying to find some really obscure way to attack the Bible. It doesn't look like it's working.

 

[truth_not_allowed]

2 Samuel 7

8 Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel:

9 And I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies out of thy sight, and have made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth.

10 Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime,

11 And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the LORD telleth thee that he will make thee an house.

12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.

16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

 

[truth_not_allowed]

Matthew 1

1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;

4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;

5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;

8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;

10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;

11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

 

[truth_not_allowed]

Luke 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,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,

33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,

34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,

35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,

36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

 

[truth_not_allowed]

The only mention of Mary is as the wife of Joseph, let us be reminded.... The VIRGIN wife of Joseph!
Even if Luke is tracing Mary's lineage with no mention of her, why does one half trace Joseph when he is nothing more than a guardian?

This is supposed to be the word of God, and God can't clearly provide proof of lineage?
We are to accept the bible is infallible and are left to make assumptions concerning the lineage (proof) of the Messiah, the seed of God.

 

[truth_not_allowed]

We are expected to accept something without question, based upon assumption..... How is this remotely responsible?

 

[truth_not_allowed]

We've heard all the excuses before...... Lineage was traced only through the men of this culture because the women were not considered important in this aspect...... Mary is not mentioned because women were not included in lineage.

Is God's word subject to cultural nuances? This defeats the entire concept of an infallible word.
We are then left to ask the question, what else is left to assumption based upon the subjective nature of the minds God was speaking to?
We can therefore not be sure that anything is properly translated through the minds of those writing the bible.

This is simple reason, and to ask someone to accept without question is highly unreasonable.

 

[diychristian]

The romans adopted crucifixion from Carthage. Which wasn't established till 814 BC. Crucifixion banned by Constantine in 4th Cent. AD. More than 2000 yrs. after Horus and only pre-dates Dionysus (who was killed and eaten by Titans). Weird that Horus, Attis, Dionysus and Mithra have the same birthday. Early Christians first celebrated Jesus' birthday on January 6th. Krishna's birthday celebration is Krishna Janmashtami, which takes place in late summer. The existence of Krishna as a historical figure is in question, but those who follow Krishna claim he was the son of a mother, who all ready had 7 sons. Krishnas' favorite love , Radha, wasn't mentioned till 14th century AD. Dionysus was born out of the leg of Zeus. Attis' resurrection wasn't recorded till 150 AD. Attis' resurrection was tied to the vegetation cycle. One version of Attis said he came back as an evergreen tree. Attis died of castration (that he performed because he was unfaithful and going mad). Mithra was born out of a rock(fully formed carrying a dagger and torch). Mithra is associated with Sol Invictus ( unconquerable sun) celebrated on Dec. 25th the winter solstice. Most of what we know about Mithra comes from 2nd century AD. There is no public recognition of Mithra in Rome till 66AD. I haven't researched it enough, but the worship of Mithra on Sunday? Seems to me someone is taking creative liberties when translating dates from the Zoroastrian calendar to the current Gregorian calendar we use today. Before the resurrection of Christ, Saturday was considered the Holy Day by the Jews. Even if Mithra was worshipped on Sunday, the odds of God being worshipped on the same day as some old mythological being would be 1:7 (not improbable at all).
With questionable 'virgin' births, their birthdays, pathetic sacrafice stories, crucifixion's short period of usuage,unparallel (to Jesus) resurrection stories, almost complete lack of reliable historical references, and the huge variances in the myth's own stories; I am declaring this "part one" video's source extremely poor and would question everything this source would ever offer again.

 

[diychristian]

I have not yet watched the remainder of the video's, but I am eager to say a few things about the lineage. Matthew was written with the Jews in mind, notice that it's lineage goes only to David. This shows Jesus' kingship (He's of a royal lineage). Luke was written glorifying Jesus as God's gift. Notice that Luke's lineage traces back to............GOD!
Some commentators argue that one lineage shows the line of Joseph and the other shows line of Mary. I don't see it, but perhaps I am missing something. I have heard that both Mary and Joseph can be traced back to David and that the lineages could have neglected to mention some trivial ancestor's (but that seems inconclusive).

 

[diychristian]

What would be the odds of a pagan culture killing people on a pagan symbol? I would guess pretty high? The cross referred to in the 2nd video is the Celtic Cross. The Celtic people lived in Britain and West Europe between 500BC. and 400AD. Rome didn't invade them till 43AD under Aulus Plautius. Romans pagan religion was blended with Celtic paganism. Most of their religious stories are in records from the Middle ages. As far as the the fish symbol goes, I think it is interesting that the first letters of the words "Jesus Christ, Son of God, and Saviour" spells "Ichthus" in Greek meaning "fish". The ram's horn, Shofar, symbolizes, to Jews, God's pleasure in Abraham's loyalty. Where God provided a ram in the place of Isaac (Gen. ch. 22). Jews blow ram's horn at Jewish New Year. The video's commentator says Luke 22:10 refers to Aquarius? Reading it seems more like Jesus is giving directions to the Passover feast, not stating some pagan belief in ages.