Jesus "verses" Paul - NOT

Since ThinkOfOne has neither the skill nor the enthusiasm to address what was put to him, I repeat the original challenge to anyone who feels up to the job.

This is a challenge for anyone to demonstrate significant and serious discrepancies between the teaching of Jesus in the four Gospels and the teaching in the epistles of Paul and his messages in the book of Acts.

Originally posted by sonship

This is a challenge for anyone to demonstrate significant and serious discrepancies between the teaching of Jesus in the four Gospels and the teaching in the epistles of Paul and his messages in the book of Acts.

Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Clearly Paul is saying that Jesus is a descendant of David (through Joseph?)

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Clearly Paul is saying that Jesus is a descendant of David (through Joseph?)

Jesus was of the house of David through Joseph, and of the seed of David through Mary.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Jesus was of the house of David through Joseph, and of the seed of David through Mary.

Well he wasn't anything to do with Joseph was he?
Mary was descended from David?
Didn't know that.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Well he wasn't anything to do with Joseph was he?
Mary was descended from David?
Didn't know that.

Just as an adopted son is an 'heir', so the adoption of Jesus positioned him into the house of David, from a legal standpoint. All lineage decisions of "kingship" were decided through the men. And legally, even though not by birth, Jesus was Joseph's son.

And yes, Mary was related to David through the lineage depicted in Luke. It is Joseph's lineage depicted in Matthew. Joseph's lineage back to David was through David's son Solomon, while Mary's lineage back to David was through David's son Nathan.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Just as an adopted son is an 'heir', so the adoption of Jesus positioned him into the house of David, from a legal standpoint. All lineage decisions of "kingship" were decided through the men. And legally, even though not by birth, Jesus was Joseph's son.

And yes, Mary was related to David through the lineage depicted in Luke. It is Joseph's lineage d ...[text shortened]... through David's son Solomon, while Mary's lineage back to David was through David's son Nathan.

Don't want to argue Suzi but can you show me where the bible gives Mary's lineage back to David?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Don't want to argue Suzi but can you show me where the bible gives Mary's lineage back to David?

I admit that there is controversy over this, but today most Bible scholars believe the lineage in Luke is of Mary. There is some argument that Joseph's lineage is in Luke while Mary's is in Matthew, but as I said, most scholars believe that the lineage in Luke is that of Mary. There is no doubt that the two lines are different from David on, so they cannot be the same person's lineage. Common sense also dictates that Luke's lineage is of Mary. Most of the early passages in Luke focus on Mary's life, and so it makes sense that the lineage is Mary's while also keeping up the appearance of all legal Hebrew lineages always going through the man, and the words "(as was supposed)" indicating that Jesus was NOT related to Joseph and so this lineage is Mary's instead. There is also the idea that among Hebrews of the time, many men considered their son in law to be their son also indicates that the text which speaks of Joseph being the son of Heli actually meant son in law, so Heli was Mary's father, keeping the lineage as Mary's without abandoning tradition that all lineage go through the (supposed) father. This lineage also goes back not only to David, but all the way back to Adam, indicating that it wasn't a royal lineage so much as a biological lineage. Also, the royal lineage (Joseph's lineage) in Matthew goes through Solomon, and as such, describes the actual lineage of the house of David, or who would be eligible to sit on the Throne of David. Jesus, as Joseph's adopted son, would also be eligible as Joseph's heir.

*Also, Joseph's lineage in Matthew goes through a man named Jeconiah, who received a curse from ever having a descendent to sit on the throne of David (Jer 22:24-30 and Jer 37:1). The gospel narratives however indicate that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and thus was not the genetic son of Joseph, although Joseph was his father by marriage to Mary. Thus by Joseph's marriage to Mary, Jesus had received the right to the throne of David without "inheriting" the curse of Jeconiah (through whom Joseph was descended). In like manner, Jesus was still the genetic descendant of David (through Mary) and therefore was genetically the bona-fide "son of David."* *...* (http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/8026/why-is-the-genealogy-in-luke-attributed-to-mary)

This is the best answer I have. I know this point is confusing, but it is my belief that the lineage in Luke is that of Mary, not Joseph. Much of Luke concerns the women around Jesus and so this makes perfect sense, without (as I said) totally abandoning the tradition that lineages be patrilinear in nature.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I admit that there is controversy over this, but today most Bible scholars believe the lineage in Luke is of Mary. There is some argument that Joseph's lineage is in Luke while Mary's is in Matthew, but as I said, most scholars believe that the lineage in Luke is that of Mary. There is no doubt that the two lines are different from David on, so they canno ...[text shortened]... se, without (as I said) totally abandoning the tradition that lineages be patrilinear in nature.

“the son (as it was assumed) of Joseph.” Luke contains the genealogy of Joseph, tracing his ancestry through David via David’s son Nathan. In contrast, Matthew contains the genealogy of Mary and traces her ancestry through David via David’s son Solomon. Nathan and Solomon were full brothers, both being the sons of David and Bathsheba (1 Chron. 3:5; cp. 2 Sam. 5:14; 1 Chron. 14:4). The Gospel of Luke never mentions Mary for the simple reason that it is not her genealogy. Similarly, Matthew never mentions Joseph, the husband of Mary, because it is not his genealogy (the Joseph in Matthew 1:16 is the father of Mary, see commentary on Matthew 1:16).

Once we realize that Matthew has Mary’s genealogy and does not mention Joseph at all, and Luke has Joseph’s genealogy and does not mention Mary at all, two things happen: the genealogies makes sense (one genealogy for Mary and one for Joseph), and also many fanciful explanations for the two genealogies is eliminated. For example, some commentators have concluded that both genealogies belong to Joseph, saying that by custom Joseph had two different fathers, a real father, Jacob, and a levirate father, Heli. But that is clearly an assumption to solve a problem that does not actually exist, and it creates another and larger problem: it would mean that Joseph has two genealogies while Mary has none.

Most of the commentators who say that Matthew is Joseph’s genealogy and Luke is Mary’s genealogy realize that each parent should have a genealogy. However, they anchor their argument in their belief that Matthew 1:16 is referring to Joseph the husband of Mary (but it is not!), and based on that they say Matthew’s genealogy has to be about Joseph and Luke’s about Mary, even though Luke does not mention Mary. They answer the objection that Luke’s genealogy does not mention Mary by saying it does not have to since Luke chapter 1 made it clear that Mary was the mother of Jesus. Our rebuttal is that both Matthew and Luke make it clear that Mary is the mother of Jesus, but in the actual genealogical list, Matthew mentions only Mary while Luke mentions only Joseph.

Defenders of the position that Luke has Mary’s genealogy point out that the Talmud says Heli was the father of Mary, not Joseph, and therefore Luke must contain Mary’s genealogy. Our rebuttal to that line of reasoning is that the Talmud was written centuries after Christ, and the animosity between the Jews and Christians had been going on for years. It is well known that in the centuries after Christ the Jews did many things to try to prove that Jesus was not the Christ. As late as when the Gospel of Luke was written (likely 50-65 AD; more than 20 years after Jesus was crucified) the Jews were still aggressively promoting that Jesus was not the Christ, which is why Luke says that it was “assumed” he was the son of Joseph. The Jews did not believe he was the Son of God. The Jews also promoted that Jesus’ body was stolen from the grave by his disciples (Matt. 28:15-17). They also discounted many of the Messianic prophecies so that Jesus could not be said to have fulfilled those prophecies. For the Jews, whether accidentally or on purpose, misunderstanding the genealogy in Luke would be just one more way to show the New Testament was confusing and erroneous. It should be recognized that believers such as Sextus Julius Africanus (c. 230), who predates the Talmud, wrote that Luke gave Joseph’s genealogy, and so did a number of the Church Fathers.

Despite all the rhetoric (some of it quite ungodly, even involving name-calling) about the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, the solution is quite simple. God gave us a mathematical key in Matthew that, along with the Aramaic text, makes it clear that Matthew has Mary’s genealogy, which is why Matthew mentions Mary and not Joseph. Luke, on the other hand, mentions Joseph and not Mary because it is Joseph’s genealogy.

http://www.revisedenglishversion.com/commentary/Luke/3

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Don't want to argue Suzi but can you show me where the bible gives Mary's lineage back to David?

If Jesus was the biological son of Joseph He could not be the reigning Divine Messiah, son of David. It is because the prophet Jeremiah speaking out of God, said no descendent of Jeconiah (a descendent of David) would sit upon the throne of David.

Here is the prophesy.

" Is this man Coniah [Jeconiah] a despised, shattered container? Or is he a vessel no one delights in?

Why are he and his seed thrown away and cast into a land which they do not know?

O land, land, land, Hear the word of Jehovah:
Thus says Jehovah,
Write down this man childless, a man who will not prosper
By sitting on the throne of David or by ruling again in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:28-30)

All descendants of Jeconiah (including any biological descendant of Joseph) are excluded from being qualified to inherit the throne of David. So if Joseph ( a biological descendent of Jeconiah ) was the biological father of Jesus, then Jesus could not be the Messiah.

The story of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is the story of God branching over every conceivable kind of wall and barrier to fulfill His will anyway. All kinds of problems erect themselves to attempt to hinder and frustrate God's plan.

God branches over the walls and fulfills His eternal plan.

Like a pinball machine with all kinds of blocking obstacles, God's will just cannot be halted by the frustrations of the fallen universe. At most it may cause Him some delay.

David had more than one son. David had Solomon and forefather of Jeconiah and Joseph, David had Nathan, a forefather of Mary. So through the line of Nathan through the virgin Mary God raised up a descendent of David to be the Messiah. The cutting off of the royal inheritance through Solomon - Jeconiah - Joseph (to abbreviate this) could therefore not stop Jesus from being "of the seed of David" .

So Joseph married Mary and God kept track of EVERYTHING and fulfilled His will to have a Davidic Messiah.
The good news is that God can ALSO .... cause ALL THINGS to work together for good to anyone participating in His salvation and loving Him.

This one who transcends time is able to engineer your entire past for a positive outcome in His eternal purpose. We need have no regrets.

" And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." (Rom. 8:28)

So we should reconsider the benefit of having such a Savior and placing our lives in His complete care.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I admit that there is controversy over this, but today most Bible scholars believe the lineage in Luke is of Mary. There is some argument that Joseph's lineage is in Luke while Mary's is in Matthew, but as I said, most scholars believe that the lineage in Luke is that of Mary. There is no doubt that the two lines are different from David on, so they canno ...[text shortened]... se, without (as I said) totally abandoning the tradition that lineages be patrilinear in nature.

Isn't the simplest explanation that either Luke or Matthew (or both) are wrong about
the lineage of Joseph? Aren't both trying to "beef up" Jesus's claim to be "King of the
Jews"?
And why is it only Luke that claims Mary was a virgin? Isn't that quite important? Why
isn't it in the other gospels? And how did Luke know Mary was a virgin?

Originally posted by wolfgang59

And why is it only Luke that claims Mary was a virgin? Isn't that quite important? Why isn't it in the other gospels? And how did Luke know Mary was a virgin?

Matthew 1:18 -25

And in spite of all the skeptics have written about of Matthew's quotation of Isaiah 7:14 the word "virgin" there cannot be forced to mean "not a woman who has not had sexual relations".

Why was Joseph minded to quietly put Mary away in verse 19? Read it.

" ... Mary, after she had been engaged to Joseph, BEFORE THEY CAME TOGETHER, was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.

And Joseph her husband, being righteous and not willing to disgrace her openly, intended to send her away secretly.

But while he pondered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife, FOR THAT WHICH HAS BEEN BEGOTTEN IN HER IS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT." (Matt. 1:18b-20)

Excuse the raising of my voice.

All four of the Gospels do not have to all report the exact same thing in everything. John and Mark say nothing about the virgin birth of Christ, whereas Matthew and Luke do.

Originally posted by wolfgang59

And how did Luke know Mary was a virgin?

He was an investigative journalist type.

" Inasmuch as many have undertaken to draw up a narrative concerning the matters which have been fully accomplished among us, even as those who from the beginning became eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,

It seemed good to me also, HAVING CAREFULLY INVESTIGATED ALL THINGS FROM THE FIRST, to write them out for you in an orderly fashion, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may fully know the certainty of the things concerning which you were instructed. " (See Luke 1:1-4)