More proof that Biblical "timeframe" is ridiculous

This technique is employed in at least one othe place in the Bible that I can think of: In the opening chapter of Matthew when the author is tracing the lineage of Christ, he in at least three places mentions the identical phrasing 'so and so begat so and so' or, in later translations 'so and so was the father of/ son of so and so' used to skip generations as a whole, yet demonstrate the link between Christ and the House of David, fulfilling the Messianic Prophecy that the Messiah would be of 'the house and lineage of David'

If I remember correctly, that lineage ends with joseph, who is NOT the biological father of Jesus, meaning Jesus is not of David's bloodline.
If we assume that God created Jesus then he can only be of the lineage of David if MARY is, since mary's blood is the human part of jesus, and there is no mention of that. That long count of joseph's ancestors is actually irelevant if he is not the father of jesus.
Sorry if this is a bit off topic here, but I have always wondered about this lineage and the meaning of it.

Wow, you people are arguing over a fairy tale book with monsters and giants and zombies and magic and bull#. Also, it has been edited, changed, and even had books thrown out. At least the Big Bad Wolf always went after Three Little Pigs. If christians did that fairy tale it would go from that to a Big Bad Scientist going after the Seven Little Sheep and instead of blowing the house down it is rasing a fence to contain them and in the end the Scientist gets the sheep and the sheep turn out to be Shepards leading the Scientist away from the flock so the flock stay stupid.

See what happens when a christian gets ahold of a fairy tale? Same thing that happened in the bible.

Originally posted by paperclip
If I remember correctly, that lineage ends with joseph, who is NOT the biological father of Jesus, meaning Jesus is not of David's bloodline.
If we assume that God created Jesus then he can only be of the lineage of David if MARY is, since mary's blood is the human part of jesus, and there is no mention of that. That long count of joseph's ancestors is actually irelevant if he is not the father of jesus.
Sorry if this is a bit off topic here, but I have always wondered about this lineage and the meaning of it.

Even though oseph's name is used, I believe the geneology in Luke is actually Mary's. If you compare the two geneologies in Matthew ch. 1 and Luke ch. 3, you'll see that they diverge after David. Matthew's goes from David to Solomon, and Luke's goes from David to Nathan. Also, Mary is the cousin of Elizabeth (see Luke 1:36) who is mentioned earlier as "of the daughters of Aaron" (Luke 1:5). Now Aaron was the elder brother of Moses, the first high priest of Israel, and of the tribe of Levi. Thus Yahshua (Hebrew name of the Son of Yahweh God) is of both the tribe of Judah (Yehudah in Hebrew) and Levi. This has great significance as Yahshua is both High Priest and King of Israel.

While we're on the subject of Mathew's Fake Midrashic Genealogy....have any of you noticed that there are SPECIFICALLY NAMED 5 LOOSE WOMEN that are listed in Matthew's "fake lists of 14" (he leaves out most of the Kings of JUDAH who reigned between 690 BC and 630 BC by the way to retain his D-V-D gemmatrial magic number 14 for the "Messianic House of David"--compare the list in 1 Chronicles chapter 3 to see the DIFFERENCE) and moreeover, that ALL THE WOMEN MENTIONED IN THE LIST ARE BASICALLY, er...well...WHORES?

e.g. FIRST THERE'S Ms. RAHAB THE HARLOT (although Matthew does call her RACHAB), TAMAR WHO SEDUCES JUDAH BY DRESSING AS A PROSTITUTE, THEN THERE's RUTH THE MOABITESS WHO UNCOVERS THE NAKEDNESS OF WITH HER MOTHER IN LAW'S KINSMAN ON A THRESHING FLOOR AND MARRIES HIM, THEN OF COURSE THERE'S BATH-SHEBITI THE JEBUSITE PRINCESS (=BathSheba) OR AS SHE IS PEJORATIVELY REFERRED TO IN MATTHEW AS "THE WIFE OF URIAH THE HITTITE" WHO COMMITTED ADULTERY WITH DAVID....and LAST BUT NOT LEAST THERE's MARY, THE MOTHER OF "JESUS"... who apparently gave premature birth to a son amidst some kind of Fornication Scandal (cf: John's Gospel: "WE were not born of Fornication: WE have one father !") .

AS C.K. BARRETT USED TO ASK US: What is MATTHEW trying to tell us here?

Either way, Matthew's Genealogy is not in any way accurate, but fudged with the numbers in order to get to the magic groupings of 14 generations (even though the last set seems only to have 13 generations for some reason)....

Daviddic claims to Messaihship could only go through the paternal line, so any specious ramblings about Matthew and Luke deriving their contradictory lists through Mary's line would be illegitimate anyway...and the text cannot be forced to be read that way (unless you stand it on its head).

Since the Davids (from the tribelets of Judah) and the Aaronids (from the tribe of Levi) did NOT intermarry (Levites were forbidden to intermarry outside the tribe), the idea that "Yeshua" was some kind of hybrid genetic mix of Levite and Daviddic blood is quite impossible (and as the Dead Sea Scrolls mentioned, there was supposed to be ONE MESSIAH SON OF DAVID and ANOTHER MESSIAH SON OF AARON, i.e. two Messiahs, one priestly one kingly based on the phrase "Ye shall become a KINGDOM AND PRIESTS" in the SamPent and the Vorlage to the LXX).

Perhaps theologically (but obvioiusly not historically) this would be a neat solution to the "problem of the Cross" i.e. the idea of the High Priest Messiah who claimed to be King sacrificiing himself upon the altar of blood for the sins of the world etc. as we see in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and whoever wrote that book (certainly NOT Saul of Tarsus---it uses a vastly different Greek style) may have wished to see the TWO MESSIAHS mixed into one person---but this is "hagaddic midrashic legend" , not "positivistic history", and the Greek author of Luke (whoever he was) is especially fond of this kind of loose midrashic symbolism in his birth narratives which gets all kinds of basic historical facts wrong in order to make a midrashic story to place the birth of "Iesous" in Bethlechem to fulfil the prophecy in Micah chapter 6 (i.e. his fable version of the Tax Enrollment Edict of Quirinius which occured in AD 6, not during the reign of Herod the Great who died in BC 4) etc.

Don't forget the Gospels are HAGGADIC MIDRASH not history, and if you don't know what that is, go look it up...!

Originally posted by Weller
Yes, great post indeed. Every generation of Christians claims the Bible is set in stone with regards to the facts, only to be proven wrong on many points as the acheological evidence comes in. Then they adapt and say it was meant to be that way.

yup, I agree.. One example being that there is absolutely NO archeological evidence to support the belief that David was a king... NONE!

Originally posted by ShawNee922

yup, I agree.. One example being that there is absolutely NO archeological evidence to support the belief that David was a king... NONE!

I can't remember exactly maybe else can. They found something over in the Middle East that noted Israel had a king named David in the past.

I just did a search that noted it was in 1993 and 1994 that they found tablets that reffered to David as king.

[edit on 21-8-2004 by dbrandt]

What if i told you That the Whole Bible was Ridiulous?
The Bible was created to scare people into doing the right thing!

Originally posted by PanzerDiv
What if i told you That the Whole Bible was Ridiulous?

The Bible was created to scare people into doing the right thing!

I would still believe in Jesus. I've already made my decision to accept Him as Savior and Lord of my life. Just remember, it appears you have made a decision to reject Christ. That's a decision with eternal consequences.

Lmfao HaHaHa, see Brain Washing at itz best! I feel sorry for you!

Originally posted by Amadeus
It seems you don't like to examine primary evidence, and you are like some others who speak about things they do not fully understand.

... trust me, I understand a great deal more than what I lead on...

Originally posted by Amadeus
I merely point out their blind acceptance of falsehoods and nonsense that religious organizations feed to their masses week after week---to people like you who do NOT BOTHER to study the subject in any depth beyond the surface.

... and which subject is that? One of your choosing? Perhaps, if you knew just how fall 'below the surface' I have travelled... but that would be revealing more that what some claim...

Originally posted by Amadeus
I sincerely pity people like yourself who live in this twilight world of myth and half-truths who blindly believe things they do not understand, or do not even want to bother to investigate for themselves is all.

...world of myth and half-truths? why, all religions are myths and half-truths. Everything seen on TV is a half-truth. Blindly believe? Well, I guess it could be said the blind lead the dumb...

Originally posted by Amadeus
This is fairly common in "dumbed down" America....

Sad really. Pick up a book sometime. You might learn something.

Judge not, least ye be judged yourself, blah blah blah...

And before you dare to place me into a catagory of your own choosing, perhaps you should learn more about myself, hmm? Here I was, becoming more and more... perturbed... by your irrogance, when I realized that there really isn't a need to. You are the 'sad one', to use your own words... you seek meaning in words written by man, without feeling the meaning behind them. It doesn't matter how close to the original source you get... they are still mortal words to describe something immortal.

So you go back to your documents, your dictionaries... you go back to your translations on finding whatever truth it is you are after. I know where I stand, and where my path leads, just as I know where my paths came from... and none of them even come close to the likes of yours. I have seen more of the workings than most hope to even read about... Pick up a book? Study? HA! If you only knew how far away from the truth you were...

And still, you evade... you, who are so wise, all knowing... shouldn't you be guiding the sheep instead of slaughtering them? And where does your heart lay?