Thaddeus

Thanks so much dear for sharing, i really enjoy your articles.God bless you

(QUOTE)

Mary can we justify Jesus as the Messiah through her? Tribal lineage is traced only through a person’s father, never the mother. This principle is clearly stated in the Torah: "And on the first day of the second month, they assembled the whole congregation together, who registered themselves by families, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names from twenty years old and upward, head by head." Numbers 1:18

Mary’s genealogy is completely irrelevant to Jesus’ alleged lineage to King David. For good reason, nowhere in the New Testament is Mary’s genealogy recorded. As mentioned above, matrilineal ancestry is irrelevant to tribe identification. Both the first chapter of Matthew and in the third chapter of Luke contain a putative genealogy of Joseph alone. Although these two genealogies completely contradict each other, neither suggests that Mary was a descendant of king of David. Joseph’s genealogy is irrelevant to Jesus because according to two out of four Gospels claim that Joseph was not Jesus’ father.

(To be Continued........)

Thaddeus

It is true Jesus does not get his right to rule through Mary, He gets that through Joseph only (Remember Jehoiachin is very important for us to understand this: he was cursed by God that no one of his sons would be King of Israel and for that curse to be by-passed we have Joseph a descendant of Jehoiachin not have any of any children from his loins rule in Israel but then Joseph was already betrothed to Mary and Christ was already in Mary’s womb at that time and in Jewish culture for someone to be betrothed is much as saying he was married to her and that’s why Christ was always called the Son of Joseph by the Jewish people and they all knew in their minds what was going on that Christ was the next King but remember Israel was being ruled by an Edomite who is not even a Jew called Herod and so when Herod had of the news from the religious elders of the time that a King would be born we all know what came next.So it is true Christ only and only gets his right to the throne through His earthly father Joseph. But the only reason we have Mary come into the picture is to by-pass that curse from Jehoachin. So Christ only gets the body from Mary,He gets no right to rule from her lineage.It is also true that the geneologies are mainly for men but we also find five women actually in the Matthew geneology also that is how God is gracious.

Matt. 1:3 Tamar. It is unusual for women to be named in genealogies. Matthew names five: “Tamar” was a Canaanite woman who posed as a prostitute to seduce Judah (Gen. 38:13–30). “Rahab” (Matt. 1:5) was a Gentile and a prostitute (Josh. 2:1). “Ruth” (Matt. 1:5) was a Moabite woman (Ruth 1:3) and a worshiper of idols. “Bathsheba” (“wife of Uriah,” Matt. 1:6) committed adultery with David (2 Sam. 11). And “Mary” (Matt. 1:16) bore the stigma of pregnancy outside of wedlock. Each of these women is an object lesson about the workings of divine grace.

We also have to view Mary in the Geneology of Luke:

Luke 3:23–38 Luke’s genealogy moves backward, from Jesus to Adam; Matthew’s moves forward, from Abraham to Joseph. Luke’s entire section from Joseph to David differs starkly from that given by Matthew. The two genealogies are easily reconciled if Luke’s is seen as Mary’s genealogy, and Matthew’s version represents Joseph’s. Thus the royal line is passed through Jesus’ legal father, and his physical descent from David is established by Mary’s lineage. Luke, unlike Matthew (see note on Matt. 1:3), includes no women in his genealogy—even Mary herself. Joseph was “the son of Heli” by marriage (Heli having no sons of his own), and thus is named here in Luke 3:23 as the representative of Mary’s generation. Moses himself established precedent for this sort of substitution in Num. 27:1–11; 36:1–12. The men listed from Heli (Luke 3:23) to Rhesa (v. 27) are found nowhere else in Scripture. Zerubbabel and Shealtiel (v. 27) are the only two names here that correspond to names in Matthew’s genealogy between David and Jesus. For an explanation see notes on Hag. 2:23 and Matt. 1:12.

FROM CHURCH TRADITION:
Since Joseph cannot be both "begotten of Jacob", descended from Solomon (according to Matthew 1), and also "of Heli", descended from another of David's sons, Nathan(according to Luke 3) various explanations have been proposed for the Luke genealogy actually to be that of Mary. The view is relatively late; advocates of this view include John of Damascus (8th century), Annius (15th century), Luther, Bengel and Lightfoot.[1] Harry A. Ironside (1930) considered that it was simply preference to drop women's names out of the genealogy, hence Joseph was son in law of Heli.[2][3]
Prior to the explanation above, the explanation of Sextus Julius Africanus that there had been a levirate marriage and that Joseph's grandfather Mattan (descendant of Solomon) had had a wife called "Esther" (not recorded in the Bible) with whom he fathered Jacob (Joseph's father), but Matthan died and Esther married Heli's father Melchi (descendant of Nathan). Then when Heli died childless (again not recorded in the Bible) Joseph's father Jacob took Heli's wife to raise up children for Heli and left Joseph adopted in Heli's widow's house.[4]
Another possibility is that since both Heli and Jacob have a similar name listed as their father (Matthan in Matthew, Matthat in Luke), a discrepancy that can easily be accounted for by error, that the names Heli and Jacob refer to the same person. Matthew relied heavily on fitting existing prophecy to the narrative; in the Old Testament, Jacob (the last of the biblical patriarchs) also had a son named Joseph.[5] This explanation fits for Heli/Jacob himself, but not for the earlier genealogies.


Joseph is clearly pointed out as descendant of David in both genealogies. On the other hand, New Testament sources are silent about Mary's descendance from David. However, through her marriage with Joseph she enters his family and legally becomes, she and her son Jesus, a part of the House of David.

(REFERENCE :https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/d/david-mary-as-descendant-of.php)

(QUOTE)

The author of the Book of Mark, the earliest of the four Gospels, knows nothing of a virgin birth, and accordingly, begins his book with the baptism of Jesus. The Book of John contains no infancy narrative. Coupled with that, nowhere in the third Gospel, or in the entire New Testament, for that matter, is there a claim that Mary was a descendant of the House of David. On the contrary, Luke plainly asserts that it is Joseph who was from the House of David, not Mary.
"To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary." Luke 1:27

While we are into the book of Luke, he writes that Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth, who he says was a descendant of Aaron the high priest, placing her in the tribe of Levi, not David’s tribe of Judah. Moreover, in Luke 2:4, the author writes that the reason it was necessary for Joseph and Mary to return to Bethlehem was because it was Joseph, not Mary, who was from the House of David. "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David.)"

Some Important information about the Book of Mark

Title

Mark, for whom this Gospel is named, was a close companion of the apostle Peter and a recurring character in the book of Acts, where he is known as “John whose other name was Mark” (Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37, 39). It was to John Mark’s mother’s home in Jerusalem that Peter went when released from prison (Acts 12:12).

John Mark was a cousin of Barnabas (Col. 4:10), who accompanied Paul and Barnabas on Paul’s first missionary journey (Acts 12:25; 13:5). But he deserted them along the way in Perga and returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). When Barnabas wanted Paul to take John Mark on the second missionary journey, Paul refused. The friction that resulted between Paul and Barnabas led to their separation (Acts 15:38–40).

But John Mark’s earlier vacillation evidently gave way to great strength and maturity, and in time he proved himself even to the apostle Paul. When Paul wrote the Colossians, he instructed them that if John Mark came, they were to welcome him (Col. 4:10). Paul even listed Mark as a fellow worker (Philem. 24). Later, Paul told Timothy to “get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry” (2 Tim. 4:11).

John Mark’s restoration to useful ministry may have been, in part, due to the ministry of Peter. Peter’s close relationship with Mark is evident from his description of him as “Mark, my son” (1 Pet. 5:13). Peter, of course, was no stranger to failure himself, and his influence on the younger man was no doubt instrumental in helping him out of the instability of his youth and into the strength and maturity he would need for the work to which God had called him.

Author and Date

Unlike the epistles, the Gospels do not name their authors. The early church Fathers, however, unanimously affirm that Mark wrote this second Gospel. Papias, bishop of Hieropolis, writing about a.d. 140, noted:

And the presbyter [the apostle John] said this: Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord (6)]

Justin Martyr, writing about a.d. 150, referred to the Gospel of Mark as “the memoirs of Peter,” and suggested that Mark committed his Gospel to writing while in Italy. This agrees with the uniform voice of early tradition, which regarded this Gospel as having been written in Rome, for the benefit of Roman Christians. Irenaeus, writing about a.d. 185, called Mark “the disciple and interpreter of Peter,” and recorded that the second Gospel consisted of what Peter preached about Christ. The testimony of the church Fathers differs as to whether this Gospel was written before or after Peter’s death (c. a.d. 67–68).

Evangelical scholars have suggested dates for the writing of Mark’s Gospel ranging from a.d. 50 to 70. A date before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in a.d. 70 is required by the comment of Jesus in Mark 13:2. Luke’s Gospel was clearly written before Acts (Acts 1:1–3). The date of the writing of Acts can probably be fixed at about a.d. 63, because that is shortly after the narrative ends (see Introduction to Acts: Author and Date). It is therefore likely, though not certain, that Mark was written at an early date, probably sometime in the 50s.

Background and Setting

Whereas Matthew was written to a Jewish audience, Mark seems to have targeted Roman believers, particularly Gentiles. When employing Aramaic terms, Mark translated them for his readers (3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 10:46; 14:36; 15:22, 34). On the other hand, in some places he used Latin expressions instead of their Greek equivalents (5:9; 6:27; 12:15, 42; 15:16, 39). He also reckoned time according to the Roman system (6:48; 13:35) and carefully explained Jewish customs (7:3–4; 14:12; 15:42). Mark omitted Jewish elements, such as the genealogies found in Matthew and Luke. This Gospel also makes fewer references to the OT, and includes less material that would be of particular interest to Jewish readers—such as that which is critical of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Sadducees are mentioned only once, in 12:18). When mentioning Simon of Cyrene (15:21), Mark identifies him as the father of Rufus, a prominent member of the church at Rome (Rom. 16:13). All of this supports the traditional view that Mark was written for a Gentile audience initially at Rome.


(To be Continued......)

Thaddeus

Historical and Theological Themes

Mark presents Jesus as the suffering servant of the Lord (10:45). His focus is on the deeds of Jesus more than his teaching, particularly emphasizing service and sacrifice. Mark omits the lengthy discourses found in the other Gospels, often relating only brief excerpts to give the gist of Jesus’ teaching. Mark also omits any account of Jesus’ ancestry and birth, beginning where Jesus’ public ministry began, with his baptism by John in the wilderness.

Mark demonstrated the humanity of Christ more clearly than any of the other evangelists, emphasizing Christ’s human emotions (1:41; 3:5; 6:34; 8:12; 9:36), his human limitations (4:38; 11:12; 13:32), and other small details that highlight the human side of the Son of God (e.g., 7:33–34; 8:12; 9:36; 10:13–16).



“You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me no god was formed, nor will there be one after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no Savior.”(Isaiah 43:10-11)
“I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God… I will strengthen you…I order that they know from the shining of the sun and from the west that there is no one besides Me; I am the Lord and there is no other!” (Isaiah 45:5-6)

Isa. 43:10 You are my witnesses . . . my servant. Israel’s God repeatedly predicted the future accurately, enabling Israel to witness to his truthful accuracy (v. 13), and thus the reality that he was the only eternal, living God. This witnessing they will do again in the millennial kingdom (cf. Joel 2:28–32).

28 "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions.
29 Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit.
30 "And I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke.
31 The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes.
32 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls. (Joel 2:28, ESV)

(EXGESIS OF Joel 2:28-32)

Joel 2:28 afterward. The abundance of material blessings would be followed by the outpouring of spiritual blessings. When coupled with the other temporal phrases within the passage (“in those days” [v. 29] and “before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes” [v. 31]), the term points to a second advent fulfillment time frame. all flesh. Since the context is “your sons and your daughters,” “all flesh” best refers to the house of Israel only. The nations are the recipients of God’s wrath, not the effusion of his Spirit (cf. 3:2; 9ff.).

Joel 2:30–31 before . . . day of the Lord. Unmistakable heavenly phenomena will signal the imminent arrival of God’s wrath in the day of the Lord (cf. v. 10; see note on 1:15).

Joel 2:32 everyone who calls. Quoted by Paul in Rom. 10:13. survivors. In spite of the nation’s sin, God promised to fulfill his unconditional covenants (Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, and New). A future remnant of Jews will inherit God’s promised blessings (cf. Isa. 10:20–22; 11:11; 16; Jer. 31:7; Mic. 2:12; Zeph. 3:13; Rom. 9:27).
(QUOTE)

Before Me no god was formed, nor will there be one after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no Savior.”(Isaiah 43:10-11)


So this refers to Jesus Christ’s second coming since He is the only Savior and God of Israel and there is no other Savior and there is no other God to save Israel. He will smite the nations at the battle of Amaggendon with just a word and He will save the Jewish remnant since they will look at him whom they pierced and they will believe for the enemies of Israel will wildly be coming against Israel (the bible actually says the nations of the world, so i believe they will be many nations) and there will only be one person to save them Jesus Christ,the bible says a sword will come out of his mouth and it shall smite all of them in a moment and Israel will be saved. And why Jesus is the only one who can do this is because He is the only one who took the scroll from the Father’s hand so he is now reclaiming back the world from the hands of Satan which He will uncreate later after 1000 years are finished and create a new Heaven and a New Earth which also shows Him to be diety.




(QUOTE)
More to come as I try to digest and vet your comment.

Please keep posting, I enjoy your work and it is a rich diet of food for thought!

Oh me too dear i enjoy your work so much to learn from each other God bless you dear.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

And I am enjoying both of your posts

Thanks Thaddeus and Pennylynn

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Let me try to sort through your comment…without punctuation it is difficult. So, if I misunderstand your meaning, I beg you to correct me. You enter into the discussion on genealogy by introducing Jehoiachin. That is a strange tale—son of a puppet king of Egypt, imprisoned by the king of Babylon to make room for another puppet king, taken in the second wave of exiles, yet released from prison and given a gracious end to his life. Jehoiachin seems to be a man stuck in the middle of history.

It is true, Jehoiachin was cursed. G*d said that Jehoiachin would be removed from the throne (Jeremiah 22:24) and be taken to Babylon, where he would die (verses 26–27). But the curse upon Jehoiachin went deeper than just his deposition and exile: “This is what the Lord says: ‘Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah’” (Jeremiah 22:30).

By the time of Mary and Joseph, Israel to include Juda, did not have a Hebrew king. Joseph could not have been engaged to Mary during the reign of Jehoiachin or any other Hebrew king of Juda. Herod the Great was ruler of Juda when Mary and Joseph’s story began. And he was not a Hebrew. He was born in Ashkelon, a southern Palestine seaport on the Mediterranean Sea in 73 BC to an Idumean man named Antipater and a woman named Cyprus, the daughter of an Arab sheik. Herod reigned 37 years. His kingdom was divided by the Romans among his three sons. One of them, Herod Antipas, was one of the conspirators in the trial and execution of Jesus. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus reported that Herod the Great died of a painful and debilitating disease that caused breathing problems, convulsions, rotting of his body, and worms.

The bottom-line, as I think (although unsure of your meaning) Jesus’ pedigree can not hinge on Mary’s genealogy. Several Hebrew texts suggest that a man’s principal heirs were the sons born to him by his wife (or wives). Sons by other women (concubines, slaves, prostitutes) were not included (Judg 11:2). Daughters were provided a dowry in lieu of an inheritance share but could be granted possession of their father’s estate in the absence of sons. If they were, they were not allowed to marry outside their father’s clan or extended family (Num 27:5-11, Num 36:5-9), in order to keep all property within the clan. After daughters, according to Num 27:11, the next in line were the deceased’s brothers, followed by his paternal uncles, followed by “the nearest kinsman of his clan.”

Therefore, is it possible that Joseph was Jesus’ biological father. There is no reason to believe Jesus was adopted, Scriptural or otherwise. In fact, Jesus was counted as legally Joseph’s son and, therefore, available to inherit everything from Joseph. This is because Joseph did not put Mary aside—“divorcing” her within the betrothal period—thereby acknowledging that the baby was legally to be his son.

This then begs the question....if Mary's linage can not be used to vet Jesus, can Joseph's? Keep in mind the curse on Jehoiachin and Joseph being his descendent.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Excellent argument

Love it

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Most certainly!

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

And glad to see that you are doing well...

I have almost completed your thread... Just looking for one more item

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Greatly appreciated.