How could he have a legal right through someone who is not related to him?
It is, ain't it?This is a 'heads I win, tails you lose' argument.
It wouldn't matter, there would still be skeptics who claimed one or the other, either Jesus had no legal right to the throne of David, or that He had no blood right. The Bible nailed it.If the genealogies of Matthew and Luke had agreed, Christians would rightly point to the agreement as evidence that the Bible in general and the gospel accounts of the life of Jesus in particular are historically accurate and reliable.
See what I mean.However, even though the genealogies do not agree, even on the name of Joseph's father, some Christians still claim that both of them are accurate, rather than admitting that at least one of them must be wrong.
I don't know about discrediting anyone, but you're right in that this type of argument isn't what convinces unbelievers of the Bible's truth. The Gospel nails that too.This sort of argument is more likely to discredit the people who use it than to convince unbelievers of the historical truth of the Bible.
Kylie, you have a "yea-but" for everything because you lack sincerity. Each report shows what the UB said in 1955 (earlier but that's when the papers were published) and compares it with science that is not connected to anyone in the UB community. AIG is just quack crap! 1/2 truths spun by biased "creationist scientist" who work for AIG.
Just take the report and do your own investigation. Unless of coarse you don't really want the answer?
"The reason Joseph is said to be the “son” of Heli (Mary’s father) brings forth a seventh consideration: the Jewish use of “son.” Hebrews used the word in at least five distinct senses: (1) in the sense used today of a one-generation offspring; (2) in the sense of a descendant, whether a grandson or a more remote descendant many generations previous, e.g., Matthew 1:1; 21:9; 22:42 (“begat” had this same flexibility in application); (3) as a son-in-law (the Jews had no word to express this concept and so just used “son”—e.g., 1 Samuel 24:16; 26:17); (4) in accordance with the Levirate marriage law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; cf. Matthew 22:24-26), a deceased man would have a son through a surrogate father who legally married the deceased man’s widow (e.g., Ruth 2:20; 3:9,12; 4:3-5); and (5) in the sense of a step-son who took on the legal status of his step-father—the relationship sustained by Jesus to Joseph (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Luke 3:23; 4:22; John 6:42)."
There is NO original word but instead, the thoughts of the King James translators, That is why it's in italics. I have two "sons" or sons in Law. The giveaway is the Scriptural fact that Joseph is the son of Jacob. He was the son in Law of Heli.
Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
It wouldn't matter, there would still be skeptics who claimed one or the other, either Jesus had no legal right to the throne of David, or that He had no blood right. The Bible nailed it.
The scripture quoted seems to confirm each of the five ways in which “son” is used in Hebrew. That said, (3) would cover Joseph being called the son of Heli (Mary's father), and (5) would cover Jesus being the legal right son of Joseph... don't you agree? That's all I've got.So how have you determined which one is meant?
The original koine greek text. I suspect your command of greek is on a par with your command of hebrew, isn't it?Citation, please.
The scripture quoted seems to confirm each of the five ways in which “son” is used in Hebrew.
That said, (3) would cover Joseph being called the son of Heli (Mary's father), and (5) would cover Jesus being the legal right son of Joseph... don't you agree? That's all I've got.
Several prophets had foretold of a messiah, Jews were no doubt expecting one, and the prophet Isaiah had laid out the Messianic hope (Isaiah 9:6-7). It mentions “upon the throne of David”... but, I don’t think they were expecting Jesus.Did the Jews of the 1st century want a restoration of the throne of David?
I don’t think Jesus was big on claiming worldly things.Did Jesus ever claim to be the rightful heir to the throne?
Yep.According to John 6:15 Jesus withdrew into the hills because he was afraid that the people would come and make him king by force?
Read the scripture and see what you think about it, I doubt any more information from me on the subject would convince you. To me anyway, it further demonstrates just how reliably the Bible ‘covers the bases’ when attempts at skeptical criticism are made.Care to be more specific as to how?
I don't know if that situation is covered in scripture.That seems to me like saying that if I divorced my husband and remarried, my daughter - no blood relation at all to my new husband - would be entitled to inheritance from him for no reason other than he married her mother.
Several prophets had foretold of a messiah, Jews were no doubt expecting one, and the prophet Isaiah had laid out the Messianic hope (Isaiah 9:6-7). It mentions “upon the throne of David”... but, I don’t think they were expecting Jesus.
I don’t think Jesus was big on claiming worldly things.
It wouldn't matter, there would still be skeptics who claimed one or the other, either Jesus had no legal right to the throne of David, or that He had no blood right.
My point was that by the prophets the 1st century Jews were expecting a messiah from the throne of David... they weren't expecting Jesus.I was asking about the Jews of Jesus's own time, i.e. the 1st century AD, not about prophets like Isaiah in the 8th century BC.
Jesus said... You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me (John 5:39). And, God told David the Messiah would come from his line (2 Samuel 7:12-13). So, what do you think?Was Jesus claiming that he had a legal or blood right to the throne of David or wasn't he? If he wasn't, then it didn't matter who his paternal grandfathers were, or whether his two genealogies were in agreement.
Read the scripture and see what you think about it, I doubt any more information from me on the subject would convince you. To me anyway, it further demonstrates just how reliably the Bible ‘covers the bases’ when attempts at skeptical criticism are made.
I don't know if that situation is covered in scripture.
It's not a "no." The passages are listed after the applicable Hebrew uses of the word "son." Have you read them? Here they are again:o that's a "no" from you then? Surely you can point to some specific passages?
My point was that you're referring to females, which is a different situation. You can research it and see if it was the same during the 1st century... but these are the verses referring to the situation with Jesus and Joseph.But that's essentially what was happening with Jesus and Joseph, wasn't it?
The New Testament was not written in Hebrew.It's not a "no." The passages are listed after the applicable Hebrew uses of the word "son."
Hellenization was happening, yes, so that makes the NT untrue???The New Testament was not written in Hebrew.
Whatever else you claim can be ignored.
SureNon sequitur.