Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How was Jesus of David's seed/line? | Gen 3:15 | jonnyr1 | 110959 | ||
"You seem to have an extraordinary high standard for proofs. Mine may not satisfy you, but here is my reasoning from Scripture." -I have one standard for proof. TRUTH. "Many hold that the geneology of Luke is Mary's geneology. But even if that was not the case, under Jewsish law an adopted son has the same status as a natural son and so the geneology of Joseph would applied to Jesus, just as our status as adopted children of God (see Romans) grants us status in the family of God." -Yes, many hold that Luke is Mary's geneology. This is something that people make up in an attempt to fix the problem. Mary's name doesn't even appear in the entire geneology of Luke 3! It would be pretty suspicious to say that it is her geneology when her name isn't even in it! Not to mention Romans 1:3 says that "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh". Jewish law has nothing to do with 'the seed of David according to the flesh'. Also a note, no women is held of high enough importance in the Bible to have their geneology listed. Jon |
||||||
2 | How was Jesus of David's seed/line? | Gen 3:15 | johnsoniu | 111005 | ||
I don't think that Luke's geneology is attributed to Mary "in an attempt to fix the problem", they do so because it makes sense. Luke's and Matthew's geneologies are different. Mattthew's is Joseph's and traces his ancestery back to Abraham to prove that Jesus was of Jewish descent and fulfilled the requirement for the Messiah. This makes sense also because Matthew's gospel was written especially for the Jewish people. Luke's geneology traces Jesus' ancestery back to Adam and Eve, of whom the original seed promise was made. This goes along with Luke's purpose of showing that Jesus was the Savior to the entire world. As for women not being held in high enough importance to have their geneologies listed, Luke had just spent the two previous chapters focusing on Jesus' birth, highlighting Mary and Elizabeth's stories. He obviously thought enough of them to include them in some detail. The only "leap of faith" required to believe this is to accept that Eli in Luke 3:23 is Joseph's father-in-law, thus Mary's father. If not, then one of the two geneologies(Luke and Matthew's) is either false or some mysterious geneology they threw in for no reason whatsoever. I can find no reason to believe either writer included false or misleading information. |
||||||