CAN YOU SOLVE THIS ONE!!

[the stranger]

I have not been on here for a while, but if ever a time came when I could use some help, it would be now. I have been in discussions with an ex-Christian site, and most questions I believe, with the help of the Lord, can find reasonable answers for. However, here is a question that I cannot find a solution for. I know Matt, though, like all Christians, we do not see eye to eye on everything, I know he is gifted with much knowledge from God. Perhaps him, or anybody else out there that can help, can give me some ideas on this:

(KJV)

Matthew 8:5-13


5And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,

6And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.

7And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.

8The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.

9For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

10When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

11And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

12But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

13And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.









Luke 7:1-10


1Now when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people, he entered into Capernaum.

2And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.

3And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.

4And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this:

5For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.

6Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof:

7Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed.

8For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

9When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

10And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick.



====================

Now in the Matthew version, we see the centurion speaking directly with Jesus Christ, a direct conversation with the Maker. By reading Matthew alone, you could not see it any other way.

Now in Luke, we see Jesus talking with the centurion's Jewish elders and the centurion's friends. By reading the Luke passage in context, one can not place any direct conversation between the centurion and Jesus, even down to the last verse of this account in Luke.

Now I have read many possible explanations, but it usually concludes one of two things. (1) The bible is not 100% reliable and therefore since part of the bible is factually wrong (Matthew or Luke) than none of the bible can be trusted. (2) Putting Luke or Matthew in where it does not fit in context, there fore making what hopefully would be a reasonable answer, it becomes an excuse instead.

Now I am very aware of the fact that none of the stories in the bible are or give a full account, and therefore we must often fit pieces together to make for more of the complete story, and therefore all facts do not need to be accounted for to make a story true. However, in this case, Matthew seems to give no break for a break in.

One could say Matthew was not saying that the centurion approached Jesus as soon as Jesus entered town, but at some point while there. Now after researching this possibility, it could work, but it still does not take away the latter account in Luke when the centurion sends out friends to talk to Jesus, and after wards, Jesus sends the centurion's friends back home.

I know the storY of who the centurion was in regards to being a gentile and how Jesus would be "unclean" if He were to enter the house according to Jewish law. I realize that is probably part of the reason he sent some Jewish elders. In any event, keeping Matthew's conversation intact, one cannot place the Luke account to fit that I can see. It would be easy if there was not such completeness in Luke"s account, but such is the way it reads, even using Greek, I just cannot fit the two passages together.

This site I am on, these people are very smart, and many already know the bible well, and they certainly know when something does not make much sense.

CAN YOU HELP ME PUT THIS PUZZLE TOGETHER?

[mattfivefour]

Thank you for your kind word, Stranger.

Primarily as a background to this discussion—but also as one way of harmonizing the two accounts— I would point to this passage from the British theologian and New Testament scholar, R.T. France's work Inerrancy and New Testament Exegesis ...

" ... even the secular historian, dealing with ancient (or even modern) sources, has a duty to look first for realistic ways of harmonising apparent discrepancies (including the possibility that his interpretation of the text was mistaken) before he considers the possibility that one or more of his sources may be either mistaken or deliberately misleading. Clearly the biblical scholar, if he regards the biblical texts as God-given, is all the more obliged to look for harmony, and should recoil instinctively from the suggestion that God's word is either mistaken or misleading. There is nothing obscurantist in this attitude; it is the necessary corollary of his dual commitment as a historian and as a Christian.

"The proper indulgence of the harmonising instinct, however, must be controlled by at least two cautionary considerations.

"(i) Harmony must be sought in terms of the biblical writer's intention, as determined by careful grammatico-historical exegesis. This is the point already sufficiently laboured above. It is perverse to look for a chronological harmony of accounts which were apparently not intended to be chronologically organised, or to look for a literal agreement of figurative language. We should be sure that the discrepancy is real, not the product of shallow exegesis, before we start to harmonise.

"(ii) We must beware of such an exclusive concern for harmonisation that we fail to notice the distinctive emphases of the biblical writers.

"For example, did the centurion send his Jewish friends to ask Jesus to heal his servant (so Lk. 7:1-10), or did he come himself (so Mt. 8:5-13)? A classic way of harmonising here is that represented by J. N. Geldenhuys' commentary on Luke: both are true, in that first he sent his friends, then he came himself; Luke has recorded the first scene, and Matthew the second. Presumably if this method is pushed to its logical conclusion the whole dialogue was repeated practically verbatim. But apart from this improbability, the method introduces a new problem, by making a man declare that he is unworthy to approach Jesus in person, only to do just that immediately afterwards. Is this the most realistic way to explain the two accounts? Does Luke's narrative really read as if he could envisage the centurion meeting Jesus in person?

"A more careful exegesis of the two accounts reveals that each has a rather different purpose in presenting the story.5 Matthew lays the emphasis heavily on the faith of the centurion, and the significance of such faith in a Gentile. Luke, while also stressing the man's faith, is more interested in his character, particularly his humility, than in his nationality. Here is a more promising explanation of the discrepancy about the friends. To Luke their presence is important in emphasising the centurion's humility and diffidence; to Matthew they are irrelevant, even, by their being Jewish, diverting attention from the main point of the story, the response of the Gentile to Jesus. So Matthew has done what he often does elsewhere (as mentioned above): he has left out a detail irrelevant to his purpose, in order to concentrate on what was for him the main point of the story. This is no ground for accusing Matthew of falsification or error in suggesting that the two met face to face; his omission of the means of the centurion's approach to Jesus is a valid literary device to highlight the message of the incident as he sees it (on the principle, common in biblical and contemporary literature, that a messenger or servant represents the one who sent him to the point of virtual identity).

"A too hasty, mechanical harmonisation in this case would run the risk of missing the whole point of the incident, by ignoring the distinctive theological contribution of the two evangelists in their recording of it. Unless we believe that the evangelists were mere mindless collectors of stories and sayings, we must beware lest an exclusive desire for harmonisation robs us of the very messages which they wrote their Gospels to put across. If God has given us a story in two different forms, each with a special theological emphasis, it ill becomes us to try to reduce them to a common denominator. Besides, this example reminds us that a proper attention to the writers' purpose will sometimes direct us to a much more plausible harmonisation than a mechanical fitting together of the component parts is likely to produce."

I think this is probably a correct method of exegesis that eliminates a contradiction in the two accounts. Another method is mechanistic. Here is a thorough example of this from Like The Master Ministries ...

" ... the major problem is who approached Jesus - the centurion (Matt. 8:5-6) or the Jewish leaders (Luke 7:2-3)? Those who reject the Bible as being divinely inspired are motivated to find error and conclude that the two passages contradict each other. They want to discredit the Bible rather than explore the possibility that it is accurate. But if the Bible is divinely inspired, then the two passages are not in disagreement and they faithfully record what truly happened. This apparent problem exists because Matthew and Luke recorded only the aspects of the event that were important to them.

"The problem disappears if we start with Luke’s account of the event. From Luke we discover that after the centurion had heard that Jesus was back in Capernaum, he sent some Jewish leaders to Jesus to plead for healing.

"When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders asking Him to come and save the life of his slave. (NASB) Luke 7:3

"When the Jewish leaders arrived, they gave a patriotic and religious plea as the reason why Jesus should heal the slave.

"When they came to Jesus, they earnestly implored Him, saying, “He is worthy for You to grant this to him; for he loves our nation and it was he who built us our synagogue.” (NASB) Luke 7:4-5

"The nature of their plea revealed what they considered to be a good reason for helping someone. They revealed their hearts - their sense of what is important. They were not motivated by the fact that someone was sick, in pain, and near death. Instead these religious leaders presented their case from a worldly perspective and not from a spiritual perspective.

"The leaders believed that this Gentile centurion deserved some help because he had given money and maybe donated some labor enabling them to build a synagogue. The fact that someone was sick, in pain, and near death was not enough. We will discover later that Jesus was not motivated by their worldly values. Yet, He agreed to go to the centurion’s home and heal the slave.

"Now Jesus started on His way with them; and when He was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends, saying to Him, “Lord, do not trouble Yourself further, for I am not worthy for You to come under my roof; for this reason I did not even consider myself worthy to come to You, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man placed under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, ‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and he does it.” (NASB) Luke 7:6-8

"Jesus started walking and when He was “not far from” the centurion’s home, the centurion sent friends to stop Him from coming closer to his home. This implies that some type of communication system was being used to tell the centurion the latest location of Jesus. Maybe there were some Roman cavalry with the Jewish leaders who were periodically returning to the centurion to keep him informed, or maybe there were foot soldiers racing ahead of Jesus. Otherwise, the centurion would not have known that Jesus was closer rather than at some distance.

"When the centurion heard that Jesus was near, he sent some friends who quoted the centurion as saying, “I am not worthy for you to come under my roof, for this reason I did not even consider myself worthy to come to You . . .“ The centurion did not want Jesus to come to his home because he felt unworthy. Now that is great respect and humility from a Roman centurion who was an authority figure and used to being served.

"But Matthew reveals that Jesus continued walking toward the centurion’s home anyway. Jesus ignored the request of the centurion’s friends. The centurion did not know it, but Jesus was coming to see him. Matt. 8:5b reveals that when the centurion saw that Jesus was coming anyway, he left his home and went out to meet Jesus.

". . . a centurion came to Him, imploring Him . . . (NASB) Matt. 8:5b

The Greek word PROSERCHOMAI which is translated as “came” has the sense of someone approaching another who is also coming toward him. That is, the centurion discovered that Jesus was continuing to approach his home, and so he finally in desperation, personally went out to meet Jesus, to stop Him from coming any further. Jesus wanted to meet the centurion; so He motivated the centurion to come to Him.

When the centurion finally stood before Jesus face-to-face he told Jesus about his slave and then made a personal plea that He not come further.

". . . 'Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented.' Jesus said to him, 'I will come and heal him.' But the centurion said, 'Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, ‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and he does it.' (NASB) Matt. 8:6-9

"The centurion’s faith was great. He knew that Jesus could heal from a distance. He believed that Jesus did not need to place his hand on the slave, speak to him, or pray over him. When Jesus heard this, He was amazed.

"Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled at him, and turned and said to the crowd that was following Him, “I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such great faith.” (NASB) Luke 7:9 Jesus had not yet found this type of faith anywhere in Israel. And so He turned to the crowd and declared that this man’s faith was exceedingly above and beyond normal expectations.

" Matthew records slightly different wording.

"Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, “Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel.” (NASB) Matt. 8:10

"It appears that Jesus repeated His statement for emphasis (Jesus was amazed). I often do that to emphasize a point. I reword things for emphasis and build up to the point that I really want to make. Matthew recorded a statement that is stronger than the one Luke recorded. It is unreasonable to conclude that Jesus never emphasized a point or repeated His statements.
Matthew’s statement is more pointed. Luke says that Jesus had not yet seen the centurion’s faith any where in Israel, but Matthew reveals that Jesus had not seen this type of faith in any person in Israel. Jesus added emphasis. He was stressing His point by repeating His statement and emphasizing that no one in Israel had this type of faith. He had not found anyone’s faith like that of the centurion. We will see shortly that Jesus will heal the slave because of His compassion for him and because the centurion believed that Jesus could heal.

"Matthew reveals that Jesus made other comments that were not recorded by Luke, 'I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' (NASB) Matt. 8:11-12


"Jesus’ additional statement tells us that many Jews will not enter the kingdom of heaven, but many Gentiles will. Why? The Jews lacked the great faith displayed by the centurion. They rejected Jesus, but the centurion did not. He believed in Him.

"The critics’ second complaint is that Matthew says the ill person was a servant. Luke says that he was a slave. This issue is simply resolved by investigating the Greek words that Matthew and Luke used. Matthew used the Greek word PAIS and Luke used DOULOS. They used different Greek words. This immediately alerts us to the fact that there is not a conflict.

"The Greek word PAIS had a broad range of meanings ranging from son, child, boy, youth, slave, servant, or slave. DOULOS has only one meaning - slave.
'. . . my servant is lying paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented.' (NASB) Matt. 8:5

'And a centurion’s slave, who was highly regarded by him, . . .' (NASB) Luke 7:2

Matthew used a general term, and Luke used a specific term. Luke’ wanted to be precise (Luke 1:1-4) in his writings and he was. DOULOS described the sick person as a slave, and PAIS revealed the emotion of the centurion’s heart for his slave. Luke tells us that the slave was highly regarded. He was like a son. The Greek word that is translated as “highly regarded” is ENTIMOS. It means “precious.” That is, the centurion had a very strong attachment to his slave. He was like a son to him. That is the reason he came pleading for his life.
Paralyzed or Near Death? Another apparent conflict is that Matthew tells us the centurion said his slave was paralyzed and fearfully tormented. Yet, Luke describes him as sick and about to die. The answer is found in the three Greek words that Matthew uses to describe the slave’s paralysis. First, the Greek word for “paralyzed” is PARALUTIKOS. The word refers to someone who was lame or paralyzed.

"The next two words indicate that the slave was not just lame or paralyzed. The next two words reveal that the paralysis was the result of a disease that was causing great pain and torment.
The second Greek word is BASANIZO. It was used to describe someone who was in torment or who was being tortured. The third Greek word is DEINOS. It was used to refer to an extremely negative condition.

"Together these three words reveal that the disease had been tormenting the slave. He was at the extreme point of the suffering. This past year I was having some pain in my left knee. So I went to a doctor for an evaluation. I was asked, “How strong is the pain on a scale of 1 to 10? Ten being the most severe.” It told the nurse that the pain varied from day to-day. According to the Greek, this slave’s pain was a “10.” It was at the extreme end. So the slave was being tortured and according to PARALUTIKOS it had resulted in him being paralyzed. So when Luke, the medical doctor, said that he was sick and near death, he had focused on a doctor’s immediate concern. The slave was near death. Jesus was being asked to heal someone who was extremely sick and near death.

"Conclusion: Matthew and Luke recorded different aspects of this event. Matthew recorded the end of the event - the final moments - and the personal interaction between Jesus and the centurion while Luke emphasized the cold heart of the Jewish leaders. The centurion’s slave was extremely ill and near death. It is amazing that the Jewish leaders did not ask for mercy for the slave. Instead, they appealed to a sense of reward for one who had given much to Israel. It is clear that they were motivated by duty and not by their hearts. They were coldly orthodox.

Together Matthew and Luke paint an incredible story of cold orthodoxy contrasted to passionate love and a great faith. Cold orthodoxy is often without love and it is often missing true faith. A heart that lacks real love does not have true faith. It does not know God. That is the message of the following passage,

"The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. (NASB) 1 John 4:8"

Stranger, I will warn you, however, that those who are determined to believe the Bible is false will not accept any explanation but will continue to argue against the bible's authorship. there is no possible way, even with the most straight-forward of scriptures, to convince a mind determined to object. The only answer is to pray for them that God, perhaps, would grant them repentance.

I hope this helps.

[the stranger]

Thank you very much for that, Matt. It probably is the best explanation that I have heard as of yet.

However, I still struggle a bit with this.

Luke 7:9When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

10And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick.

I was kind of looking in this type of direction before, and it certainly makes the most logic.

These are the questions that I had thought about:

(1) Who was Jesus marveling at? The speaker of the friends or the centurion himself?

I would like to think it may have been the centurion, such as this explanation puts it, but how to we equate verse 10?

And they that were sent?

Now it does not say that the centurion could not have been included, however, it does seem to imply the friends alone.

Thank you again for the article. It may not be completely critic proof, but does make the most sense.


( I suppose it is possible that Matthew could fit into (or in between) Luke 7:9 and 7:10, and having two statements regarding the centurion's faith.)

[mattfivefour]

( I suppose it is possible that Matthew could fit into (or in between) Luke 7:9 and 7:10, and having two statements regarding the centurion's faith.)

You are quite correct. And that is a view I espouse.

In any case there is not a clear contradiction here between the two gospel writers (one an eye witness, the other a historian who spoke to witnesses) unless you want there to be one. There are ample explanations to account for the differing points of view. I think it is said best in these two selections from the two articles I quoted above:here:

"A more careful exegesis of the two accounts reveals that each has a rather different purpose in presenting the story. Matthew lays the emphasis heavily on the faith of the centurion, and the significance of such faith in a Gentile. Luke, while also stressing the man's faith, is more interested in his character, particularly his humility, than in his nationality. Here is a more promising explanation of the discrepancy about the friends. To Luke their presence is important in emphasising the centurion's humility and diffidence; to Matthew they are irrelevant, even, by their being Jewish, diverting attention from the main point of the story, the response of the Gentile to Jesus. So Matthew has done what he often does elsewhere (as mentioned above): he has left out a detail irrelevant to his purpose, in order to concentrate on what was for him the main point of the story. This is no ground for accusing Matthew of falsification or error in suggesting that the two met face to face; his omission of the means of the centurion's approach to Jesus is a valid literary device to highlight the message of the incident as he sees it (on the principle, common in biblical and contemporary literature, that a messenger or servant represents the one who sent him to the point of virtual identity).

Matthew and Luke recorded different aspects of this event. Matthew recorded the end of the event - the final moments - and the personal interaction between Jesus and the centurion while Luke emphasized the cold heart of the Jewish leaders.

[the stranger]

Thank you Matt. I know from earlier I can usually count on you to answer some of the toughest questions. Rest assured I will return. A Christian can't fight this fight alone.

Thanks again.

[mattfivefour]

My prayers go with you, stranger. Fight the good fight of faith ... but know that it is not us or our words but only the Holy Spirit who can touch hearts. Make prayer your main arena ... and your work in that forum will go much easier.

[Elijah's Mantle]

Now I have read many possible explanations, but it usually concludes one of two things. (1) The bible is not 100% reliable and therefore since part of the bible is factually wrong (Matthew or Luke) than none of the bible can be trusted. (2) Putting Luke or Matthew in where it does not fit in context, there fore making what hopefully would be a reasonable answer, it becomes an excuse instead.

Ive never embarked on the journey of attempting to harmonize two differing Gospel accounts (ever)

I have given this much thought
and I dont want to step totally out of discussing or change the over all topic
yet I still realize that there is a dramatic difference in The old Gospel and the New Gospel
what is the difference ?
after I read this thread
I was able to come across this and believed I could share it in this topic of discussion here

The Difference in the Old Gospel and the New Gospel by Rolfe Barnard

Now my friends, I come to say that the Old Gospel of God's Grace is opposed to this 'new gospel' of part grace and part man. The Old Gospel, which is the true Gospel of God, safeguarded some values which this 'new gospel' loses. Will you hear me carefully now? The 'new gospel' that we have today by a certain universal redemption and universal divine saving purpose compels itself to cheapen grace and to cheapen the cross of Christ, by denying that the Father and the Son are sovereign in salvation. This 'new gospel' assures us that after God in Christ has done all that They can or will do, it depends finally on each man's own choice whether God's purpose to save him is realized or not.

Now my friends, this popular position has two unhappy results -- this preaching that God has done His part and now He helplessly stands by while you decide whether or not his purpose shall be realized:

In the first place, this position compels us to misunderstand the significance of the gracious invitations of Christ in the Gospel. When we hear the invitations of these preachers who pervert the Gospel, they are not the expressions of the tender patience of a mighty Sovereign--they are the pathetic pleas of human desire. And so the enthroned Lord of glory under present-day preaching is suddenly changed into a weak, futile figure, knocking at the human heart which He is powerless to open. My friends, this is a shameful dishonor to the Sovereign Christ of the New Testament.

In the second place, this 'new gospel' as it is preached forces us to deny our dependence upon God; when it comes to vital decisions, it takes us out of God's hands. It tells us that after all, we are the master of our fate, and the captain of our souls. And it so undermines the very foundation of our relationship with our Maker. No wonder the converts of today are so often both irreverent and irreligious.

The Old Gospel speaks very differently in expounding man's need of Christ; the Old Gospel stresses something almost ignored today. That something is that sinners cannot obey the Gospel any more than they can obey the law, apart from renewal of heart. On the other hand, declaring Christ's power to save, the Old Gospel proclaims Him as the Author and chief agent of conversion. It preaches Him as coming by His Spirit as the Gospel goes forth to renew men's hearts and draw them to Himself. Thus, the Old Gospel, while stressing that faith is man's duty, stresses also that faith is not in man's power. God must give what He commands. Ephesians 2:8 says, 'For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.'

Hebrews 12:2a says: 'Looking unto Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith...'

Thus the Old Gospel announces not merely that men must come to Christ for salvation, but the Old Gospel also announces that men cannot come unless God draws them. John 6:44 says, 'No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him...'

John 14:6 says, 'Jesus saith unto him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father but by Me.'

John 3:27 says, 'John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from Heaven.'

Thus, my friends, the Old Gospel does what desperately needs to be done; it labors to overthrow self-confidence, it labors to convince sinners that salvation is altogether out of their hands, and to shut sinners up to a self-despairing dependence on the glorious grace of a Sovereign Saviour, not only for their righteousness, but for their faith, too. Thus the Old Gospel doesn't talk about deciding for Christ, as we hear today. For this business of deciding for Christ suggests voting a person into office. It suggests an act in which the candidate plays no part, beyond offering himself for election. Everything is settled by the voter's independent choice. I wish people would believe me when I tell you that we do not vote God's Son into office as our Saviour! Nor does our Saviour remain passive while preachers campaign on His behalf.

My friends, coming to Christ, resting on Christ and turning from sin in full surrender to Christ is far different from deciding for Christ as your Saviour. Those who pervert the Gospel beg people to accept Jesus as their Saviour, and they will be saved. That is a lie out of Hell, because it is not in the Bible. If a person does not surrender to Jesus Christ as your Lord to rule and reign over you -- Why! -- You are not saved! We also hear these words spoken by preachers who pervert the Gospel: 'Now sinners, God has done His part -- the Devil wants you, and Christ wants you, and you have the deciding vote.' But, my friends, that is a lie out of Hell! Christ didn't just offer Himself for office. He is working now, He is on a throne now ruling and reigning as Prophet, Priest, and King. He does not stand by while we try to get people to decide for Him as the Gospel is proclaimed.

He comes in the Spirit actively to draw men to Himself, and thus we preachers say that He is a Saviour for sinners. The Father and the Spirit draw sinners to Christ. Salvation is of the Lord. Thank God it is all in Christ. And to the question, 'What must I do to be saved?' And this is the question of questions. The Old Gospel replies, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.' And then, somebody says, 'What does that mean?' The Old Gospel replies, 'It means knowing one's self to be a sinner and Christ who died for sinners. It means to abandon all self-righteousness and self-confidence,and cast yourself wholly upon Christ for pardon and peace. It means exchanging one's natural enmity and rebellion against God for a spirit of grateful submission to the will of Christ, through the renewing of one's heart by the Holy Ghost. It means God taking a sinner and making him a new creature in Christ.'

The next question, how am I to go about believing on Christ and repenting? Brother Barnard, you say I have no natural ability to do these things? I didn't say that -- God says that! If I have no ability to do these things, how am I to go about believing on Christ and repenting? If you say I must -- and I can't -- how can it come to pass? To that perplexing question, and yet true one, the Old Gospel answers, 'Listen, sinner friend, look to Christ. Quit looking to yourself; quit listening to your old bent and feeble will; look to Christ, seek the Lord, beg for mercy.' 1 Samuel 2:8 says, 'He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory...'

Isaiah 45:22 says, 'Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.'

Isaiah 55:6 says, 'Seek ye the Lord while He may be found, call ye upon Him while He is near.'

Jeremiah 29:13 says, 'And ye shall seek Me, and find Me, when ye shall search for Me with all your heart.'

Cry to Christ, just as you are, cast yourself on His mercy, ask Him to give you a new heart, working in you true repentance and faith. Ask Christ to take away your evil heart of unbelief and to write His law in your heart. Draw near to Him, watching, praying, reading, and hearing His Word. And continue to seek the Lord til He speaks peace to you.

God Almighty has to perform a miracle in you and reveal Christ in you, for you to have eternal life.

John 17:3 says, 'And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom Thou hast sent.'

Luke 10:22 says, 'All things are delivered to Me of My Father: and no man knoweth Who the Son is, but the Father; and Who the Father is, but the Son, and He to whom the Son shall reveal Him.'

The Holy Ghost has to baptize you into the body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:13a says, 'For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body...'

Our Lord Jesus Christ is not passively waiting, but is actively working to bring His chosen people to faith. The preaching of the 'new gospel' is called bringing men to Christ, as if only men moved while Christ stand still. The true Gospel is the coming of Christ to men. As the Gospel is preached, and Christ is set before men's eyes, the mighty Saviour, Whom the Gospel proclaims busy -- 'Praise God' -- doing His work through the Word. Not standing by, but visiting sinners with salvation, awakening them to faith and drawing them in mercy to Himself. Thank God, we don't have to use all these methods of the flesh to get somebody to decide to accept Christ! We just have to proclaim Christ in the power of the Holy Ghost! We don't have to look at those poor sinners and know that it all depends on them. But we know that as we preach Christ, He is standing by, He is working, He is dealing with men. He is opening blind eyes and bless God, He is drawing sinners to Himself. Oh, how glorious it is to proclaim Christ Who came into the world to save sinners! Praise His Holy Name!

Luke 5:32 says, 'I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.'

Galatians 1:6-9 says, 'I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel, which is not another, but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.'


makes one really give thought to the man condition doesn't it ?
least it did it for me

To God be all the Glory He is sovereign in his reign more over than man may think despite differences of words or even accounts of words
this benefited my thinking greatly and I hope it will be of interest to others

[Price is paid]

8For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

9When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

Your answer is in verse 8, the 9th word. Jesus marvelled at the centurion because he recognized His authority, as I understand it, no one else had at this point.

[Price is paid]

To add further to this, the centurion explained his own authority knowing that all he had to do was speak his wishes and they would be carried out. But his authority was from Rome. So when he said or sent word to Jesus that all Jesus had to do was speak the word,, he recognized that Jesus authority was from GOD THE FATHER.

[the stranger]

Thank you for your thoughts on the subject, price is paid.

Mantle, appreciate your article.

Matt, I have already told ya thanks, but you need to know, I had spent days on google and reading a ton of articles, Yours was the first that really made some true sense in putting things together, without inserting scripture out of place. It is really appreciated.

Right now I am working on the difference between the family list/blood line with Matthew versing Luke. WOW, that one could take forever. I found some good probabilities, but have much more research to go before I post there.

Your words of advise are right on regarding the members of the ex christian web site. I think with most things in life God allows us the ability and reason to believe in Him or not to believe in Him, and I guess that is why it is called free will.

It is hard to understand ex pastors, missionaries, and other church workers, that had been Christians for 30+ years returning to an unbelief. I really do not get it. I have read their testimonies, but just cannot understand.

This living, personal Christ, living inside of every one who believes, and helping us make every decision, walking with us, talking with us, and guiding us, and to all of a sudden (well, over time) throw it all away and pretend it was just a fragment of ones own mind. I guess there is somethings that I will never understand. Matt, your right, prayer through the holy spirit, that is, the calling of the holy spirit, is the only true thing that will guide them back to the fold. Everybody is looking for miracles, not understanding everyday is another miracle.

God bless you Matt, you and your ministry.

[the stranger]

IF MARY HAD SIN, HOW WAS JESUS BORN SINLESS? We as Christians, know better than a certain, shall we say, R C doctrine that puts Mary with out sin. The bible of course teaches that we are all born with sin, and/or the sin nature. If Jesus was from the blood line of Mary, being of course a virgin, how could Jesus have been sinless.

And on that matter, why was it felt needed to trace Joseph's line back to Abraham/ Adam in Matthew and Luke if Joseph actually had no direct bloodline with Jesus, though Jesus was a legal son?

Just some interesting questions. If anyone has any ideas, please do share.


God bless

[Elijah's Mantle]

Because God did something very special
he told Mary what her role would be
to carry Jesus into the world
the conception part
was God's special doing
not that Mary was sinless she wasn't
she was just the one God picked

the DNA of Jesus God did something special

I always felt with this difficult question
God borrowed Mary and Joseph
yet Jesus was from God because of
the word about (ONLY BEGOTTEN)
so in a sense God just borrowed Mary and Joseph

[the stranger]

Thank you for that reply. I was kind of thinking on those lines, but here was the problem I ran into. Luke and Matthew and elsewhere in the NT make it note worthy to remember Jesus as a descendant of David. Most place the blood line through Mary. Point being, if this is true, than some of the genes from Mary would (one would think, anyway) be carried on to Jesus. If not, than how can we trace the blood line to Abraham?

Now Jesus came from God for sure, through the use of Mary, but if, just like no sperm was used of Joseph, Jesus carried no bodily link, including genes, from Mary, than how can we say Jesus was human, and through the blood line of Mary?

Also, if true, would it have mattered if Mary was a virgin or not if that is the case?

I appreciate your insight Mantle. I have read many of your posts. You certainly know your scripture well.

[Elijah's Mantle]

Thanks stranger Im still learning much of the scripture
Its a daily thing


well I was thinking on searching out the word 'Only Begotten by God "
concerning bloodline of David
seems to me I read a passage that

ooh I remember
it was in the trivia thing about all the prophecies Jesus fulfilled
It was interesting
Ill see if I can find that Bible passage again
it also has a mystery about it

the one in lamentations
I did figure out them prisoners of the earth
was the Jewish people who had been taken captive
by the Babylonians
yor question caused me to go a looking
never know what one will find
the Bible is like a lot of hidden mysteries
always finding something else out

some of the Prophets did real bizarre things
consider the one who walked naked through the streets
with a yoke around his neck
like something a ox would wear
wild stuff they done

[Elijah's Mantle]

Messianic Prophecies (WebBible


I think in this one that one about Shiloh and Judah links it
I wish I could find just the Bible passage on it

anyway It speaks of the only begotten
that word Begotten is important some how

[Elijah's Mantle]

finally found it

what do you think of this one ? stranger

The PLACE of Jesus as God's ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God who has the pre-eminence in God's family.

The statement in John 1:14 which refers to Jesus as "the only begotten of the Father" is now the focus of our attention.

We will split the term "only begotten" in two. First and foremost, we will think of how Jesus is God's "only" Son. Then we will discuss the term "begotten".
arrow1. The Only Son

The O in GLORY stands for Only. In the term "only begotten" it is the word ONLY, expressing uniqueness, that should be emphasised. Jesus has a unique relationship with God the Father. There is no other like him.

The Hebrew writer distinguishes Jesus from angels, by asking, "To which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you'?" (Heb 1:5 Psa 2:7) . The writer is not saying that angels (or for that matter men and women) cannot be sons of God. What he means is that this Son is unique and unlike any other son of God.

In what way is Jesus unique as a son? The writer explains this further down when he quotes, "But to the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever'" (Heb 1:8 Psa 45:6) . Notice that he addresses his Son as "God". No other son is ever addressed as God.

Reading on from that last quote, we come to another, along similar lines: "And, 'You LORD in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth...'" (Hebrews 1:10 Psalm 102:25) . Here God addresses his Son as LORD (which in Psalm 102 stands for that special name of God: Yaweh or Jehovah). You need to pay close attention to the fact that these quotes are both attributed to the Father addressing his Son. Note verse 8, "But to the Son he says..." after which follow the quotes that include the terms of address, "O God" and "You, LORD". As weird as it may seem to you at first, please satisfy yourself that the Father is quoted as addressing his Son as God and LORD. This is not just a curiosity.

In Philippians 2:9-10 it is claimed that Jesus has been given the name which is above every name. Only God has the name which is above every name. This was no novel idea. The prophet (Isa 9:6) had foretold it centuries earlier: "Unto us a child is born, Unto us a Son is given... His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Only one Son has a right to be called the very name by which his heavenly Father is addressed and worshipped. In that sense Jesus is the ONLY Son of God. He has that unique place in God's family.

There are countless sons of God, but only one God the Son.
arrow2. The Begotten Son

Now we turn our attention to the term "begotten" in the description of Jesus as the "only begotten" of God. There are three ways of approaching this...

1. The Anti-Arian Argument

Certain ideas concerning the "begetting" of God's Son led to the heresy known as Arianism. Arius was a fourth century priest in Alexandria who maintained that because the Son was begotten of God, then there must have been a time when the Son did not exist, for how could he exist before he was begotten? To rephrase the question, how can a begotten son be as old as his father? Arius reasoned that the Son must be a created being, not eternal God. People got bogged down in theories about how (or in what sense the eternal Word could be "begotten".

They made some clever arguments along the lines that the Son was begotten, not in the sense that he came into existence, but in the sense that his existence always depended upon the Father. They call it an "unoriginated relationship" in the sense that the Son was begotten from eternity, not at some point in time. Whilst these arguments are plausible, and they more than adequately answered the Arian error, they do seem somewhat contrived.

The anti-Arian creeds were careful to describe Jesus as "begotten not created" but they did little to remove the sense of contradiction that this confession engendered in some minds. In all of the debate, undue philosophy tended to confuse the issue, and some rather simple points of scripture were lost sight of. In hindsight, we can see these more clearly now. The debate did not sufficiently distinguish the two natures of Jesus Christ, as expressed in the two statements "the Word was God" and "The Word became flesh" (Jhn 1:1,14).

2. The Incarnation Only Argument

Some think that the Arian debate may have missed the point. Isn't it more acceptable to apply the term "begotten" only to to Christ's incarnation and human nature , rather than trying to apply it to his divine and eternal nature? According to this view, the begetting took place when "the Word became flesh" (Jhn 1:14), not when "the Word was God". (Jhn 1:1-3).

Jesus was begotten as a human child not by his human father, but by God, since Mary was still a virgin when Jesus was conceived (Luke 1:34-35). So some people feel that it's easier to see how the Word, in the flesh, was "the only begotten of the Father", than it is to see how the Word, as eternal God, was "begotten". When applying the term "only begotten" to "the Word became flesh", one can still believe in the divine and eternal nature of the Son, without having to stretch the term "begotten" to make it fit that nature.

There is a danger with the above view however. The baby is easily thrown out with the bathwater. One might conclude that if the Word was not begotten until the Word became flesh, then the Word was not the Son until then. This is not a necessary conclusion, but likely to be drawn, and so people are understandably wary of the view outlined above.

3. The Unique-not-Begotten Argument

There is a third consideration, and this concerns whether the term "only begotten" is actually a correct translation. You will note that some translations, such as the New International version, have eliminated the term "only begotten" and replaced it with a term such as "unique" expressing the only one of his kind.

The reasoning behind this is simple enough: The Greek word in the text is monogenees, meaning one of a kind, not monogennees meaning only begotten. This is the simplest argument of all, because it eliminates the need to worry about how Christ could be both eternal and begotten, and removes the emphasis on Christ being a begotten Son. Instead the emphasis is on Christ being the Son of God who was unique in that he was both wholly divine and wholly human. No other Person or Being like that has ever been known.


For the purpose of our present studies, remember that the O in GLORY stands for Only (expressing the unique Sonship of Jesus Christ) and that's our main point. The term "begotten" is secondary. Whichever view we take about the term "begotten", we should emphasise, as of first importance, Christ's unique place as the Son of God. Discussion of the term "begotten" is beside the point. It's worth noting, but it's not THE point of our lesson. If adding it on has caused a distraction, then perhaps you would do well to disregard it altogether, and simply stay with what the O stands for in GLORY —Jesus is the ONLY Son of his kind, the unique Son who is God.

There is no other like the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He has first place in everything (Col 1:18) .
print

[the stranger]

Thank you Mantle for the time and effort that you have put into this. Using biblos.com we can identify with your claim.

Original Word: μονογενής, ές
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: monogenés
Phonetic Spelling: (mon-og-en-ace')
Short Definition: only, only-begotten, unique
Definition: only, only-begotten; unique.

3439 monogenḗs (from 3411 /misthōtós, "one-and-only" and 1085 /génos, "offspring, stock") – properly, one-and-only; "one of a kind" – literally, "one (monos) of a class, genos" (the only of its kind).



I believe your main point was this birth was unlike any other, therefore really cannot be compared or understood in human terms.

I am going to show you one of the main verses in question and than I will show you a couple interesting verses that God led me too, though I have yet to tie them together.

Well, I am just going to lay a portion of it out in full, with the comments (questions) at least a couple of them, that I am presently dealing with.

================================================== =======

The blood link is part of the promise to David.
The king messiah must be the physical offspring of David. David is considered the starting point from which a king messiah must originate. God promised to David:

2 Sam 7:12-16
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.
He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
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:
But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

The biological link is also expressed here:
Psa 89:34-37
My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.
His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.
It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven.

Solomon would be punished when he did wrong, but as 2 Sam 7:12-16 indicates, Solomon would never have God's favor taken from him. Solomon was the son who would carry on the physical line of his father David which would be established forever as shown in the following:

1 Chron 28:5-7
And of all my sons, (for the LORD hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel.
And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.
Moreover I will establish his kingdom for ever, if he be constant to do my commandments and my judgments, as at this day.

Solomon's kingdom was carried on through his descendant Asa who followed the Lord's heart as King David had done.

Adoption breaks the paternal blood link.

================================================== ========

Now I have found a couple of neat things, but have yet to tie it all together:

2233. zera

2234 >>
a sowing, seed, offspring
Original Word: זָ֫רַע
Transliteration: zera
Phonetic Spelling: (zeh'-rah)
Short Definition: descendants
Word Origin
from zara
Definition
a sowing, seed, offspring
NASB Word Usage
carnally* (1), child (1), children (3), descendant (3), descendants (105), descent (1), family (6), fertile (1), grain (3), intercourse* (2), line (1), nation (1), offspring (38), offspring's offspring (1), origin (1), posterity (1), race (1), seed (48), seedtime (1), seminal (4), seminal* (1), son* (1), time (1), what you sow (1).

NAS Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible with Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries
Copyright © 1981, 1998 by The Lockman Foundation
All rights reserved Lockman.org

child, fruitful, seedtime, sowing- time

From zara'; seed; figuratively, fruit, plant, sowing-time, posterity -- X carnally, child, fruitful, seed(-time), sowing- time.




Now by this definition of "seed" we can know that it simply can have the idea of a child or son, and not for sure or always implying the direct blood line. In fact, many times we see this term as a spiritual term:


Before I go on, however, let me show the definition of "bowels"

4578. meeh

4579 >>
internal organs, inward parts, belly
Original Word: מְעֵי
Transliteration: meeh
Phonetic Spelling: (may-aw')
Short Definition: body
Word Origin
of uncertain derivation
Definition
internal organs, inward parts, belly
NASB Word Usage
abdomen (1), body (4), bowels (4), children* (1), feelings (1), heart (4), inward parts (1), offspring* (1), own (1), soul (2), spirit (2), stomach (4), stomachs (1), within (1), womb (1).

NAS Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible with Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries
Copyright © 1981, 1998 by The Lockman Foundation
All rights reserved Lockman.org

belly, bowels, heart, womb

From an unused root probably meaning to be soft; used only in plural the intestines, or (collectively) the abdomen, figuratively, sympathy; by implication, a vest; by extens. The stomach, the uterus (or of men, the seat of generation), the heart (figuratively) -- belly, bowels, X heart, womb.




Now most often this is associated with the direct blood line, but not always. In general, it can basically mean from inside, or possibly spirit, which could perhaps fit this bill.

Let me hurry, as I am running out of time, and show some interesting scripture (in part)


2 Timothy 2:8 (King James Version)

8Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:


just relating to the NT with the OT


1 John 3:9 (King James Version)

9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

This seems to be showing that the seed can be meaning of the spirit, as we are of course not from God through birth, but only spiritual birth. Made from Him, yes, but not born of Him with out the Holy Spirit.

Revelation 12:17 (King James Version)

17And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.


Now I could be wrong, but if the woman is Israel, and we are the remnant, than both Israel and us, the gentiles, the church of that time, no matter when the rapture is, are considered the seed.


Galatians 3:16 (King James Version)

16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.



This verse seeming to imply the seed talked about concerning the promise was of Jesus Christ alone, though it also certainly was referring to his son, Salomon, and further down the line, another double meaning.


Proverbs 11:21 (King James Version)

21Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished: but the seed of the righteous shall be delivered.


Another scripture that would be hard to be only implied to the Jews.

Another interesting one is back in Genesis

Genesis 17:6-7 (King James Version)

6And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

7And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

19And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.



Bottom line with this, the covenant seems to cover not only the blood line Jews, but to all the owned or living among like the Jews as well, even more so when we know if one wanted to be a Jew, they just had to live among them and obey their (the Lords) teachings. It appears as though the one,s that are not part of the covenant are the one's who do not want to be.



Romans 9:6-13 (King James Version)

6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

9For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

10And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.


I guess I do not really need to explain this one.

There are many more out there.

In general, what I am learning as just like many other prophecies, there are often two or more implications of those words, including many times with the birth of Jesus and the history of Satan. I believe the promise to Davis is no exception.

However, I still have yet to think, pray, and dwell on how these passages quite link up with :

Psalm 132:11 (King James Version)

11The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.



==========================

As stated, I understand fully that prophecies often have more than one meaning, but still, there is the blood line to contend with. Is Jesus different from all others, most certainly.

So far I can only place earlier scripture with a possible meaning of the heart or spirit, and not perhaps the direct blood line, but again, if so, why the big deal in Matthew and Luke relating the family ties back to the beginning?

=============





Well, One more time, I appreciate your help, as any help is always better than no help, and I will be looking forward to any advise that comes my way. I have some ideas, but just have not tied them all together yet.

Thank you for being here and listening, my brothers and sisters, as it means a lot!

God bless

[arapahoepark]

Hey man! I have no idea if this was said already but I read some where that Luke's account is the accurate portrayal in that, it happened.
In the Book of Matthew was a Jewish portrayal and it's a very Jewish thing to say that for instance the King came to greet you even if it was a servant of his. So therefore, the Luke account from our stand point is right the servants went, and in Matthew it's right too just from a Jewish standpoint, the centurion came, but by way of the servants.

[the stranger]

Thanks for the reply, bro Park. I believe to some extent you are correct, but in the other verses that hinted to that case in point, it seemed quite clear in the scripture story what was meant or implied. In this case, however, I believe one has to stray a ways from the way the text reads and/or sounds. I did give that thought some consideration in my studies early on.

I think the most likely answer on that question came from Matt, who did a nice job laying a good probability, and basically that is reading the Luke account first, with the exception of the last verse, than reading Matthew up to the last verse. Thew last verse to be read first in Luke, than in Matthew. It does seem to read fairly nicely in the context.

I appreciate your comments. Right now I am working on the question of the blood line of Jesus, and the lists of Matthew and Luke, and the "problems" there in. If you have any comments regarding, please let me know.


Thanks again bro.

[Elijah's Mantle]

stranger its a real oddity how the two accounts differ and the only thing I keep thinking is how Paul desribed it in Romans which in no way reconciles the oddity of the other 2 accounts


Matthew has him coming through Solomon a son of David after 27 generations
And then Luke has him coming through Nathran another son of David after 37 generations.
The two lineages are almost completely different.Yet are not different
Which one is right and which is wrong?
The only possible part that makes sense is there was one for Mary
and one for Joseph Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David.
Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David.
Then they split which signifies to me that there is Mary the mothers side and then Joseph's the fathers side


yet laying that aside
check out how Paul explained Jesus in Romans
begining even in chapter one
of the seed of David ....... according to the flesh
and declared to be the son of God with power
here we have Jesus in his Humanity described
yet also in his full divine deity described
according to the spirit of Holiness
here we see the Holy Spirit
by the resurrection from the dead
which Jesus was crucified for saying
he was the son of God
God resurrected Jesus because he truly was the son of God
His humanity was in the blood line of David on both sides whether Josephs or Mary's considering the split of the two accounts
However his divinity and deity was in God the only Begotten
If that makes sense

It certiantly is a quirky thing between the two accounts
but only logic I see is that they had customs that give apparently both sides
Joseph's and Mary's

could that be the reason How come stranger ?