Is The Bible Literally True?

[Sparko]

Notice when he is provided answers he simply dismisses them and just repeats his claims. To me it seems like he is just trolling this thread.

I think there is something mentally wrong with him. Like IQ wise. I think he just finds some stuff on some anti-christian sites and copy/pastes them here, and doesn't have the intelligence to actually defend his views so he just ignores people and repeats himself.

[Cow Poke]

I think there is something mentally wrong with him. Like IQ wise. I think he just finds some stuff on some anti-christian sites and copy/pastes them here, and doesn't have the intelligence to actually defend his views so he just ignores people and repeats himself.

And/or, he knows deep down that Islam is a farce, the Quran is full of holes, so he's projecting.

[tabibito]

I think there is something mentally wrong with him. Like IQ wise. I think he just finds some stuff on some anti-christian sites and copy/pastes them here, and doesn't have the intelligence to actually defend his views so he just ignores people and repeats himself.

Nonetheless, there are people, even Christians, who might have one or another of these same questions. This is good practice for being able to address their concerns.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I think there is something mentally wrong with him. Like IQ wise. I think he just finds some stuff on some anti-christian sites and copy/pastes them here, and doesn't have the intelligence to actually defend his views so he just ignores people and repeats himself.

Or it's just being a Muslim. Muslims are actually worse in their argumentation than internet atheists.

[Sparko]

or it's just being a muslim. Muslims are actually worse in their argumentation than internet atheists.

ecree!!!

[ReformedApologist]

Or it's just being a Muslim. Muslims are actually worse in their argumentation than internet atheists.

Not to mention they take their arguments from Atheists websites or cult websites and just repeat them.

[JonathanL]

OK.

In anyway, it is not possible that Jesus is the son of David if both Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 namely trace the lineage of Joseph to David and Jesus had no biological father since he was born without father. Hence, Roman 1:3 is not true when saying Jesus is traced to David according to the flesh.

Ok, but Mary could still be descendant of David even if none of the genealogies in the gospels trace her descent to David, which would make Jesus a descendant of David according to the flesh through Mary. Even if none of the genealogies are actually Mary's (and that's not clear at all) it doesn't mean she can't be a descendant of David. It would simply mean her genealogy isn't listed in the gospels.

[ReformedApologist]

Ok, but Mary could still be descendant of David even if none of the genealogies in the gospels trace her descent to David, which would make Jesus a descendant of David according to the flesh through Mary. Even if none of the genealogies are actually Mary's (and that's not clear at all) it doesn't mean she can't be a descendant of David. It would simply mean her genealogy isn't listed in the gospels.

Not to mention the Jews kept records in the temple of those born during the time (Psalm 69:28). So they could of checked to see if she was from the line of David.

[Same Hakeem]

Luke 3 is probably Mary's lineage, not Joseph's

In Matthew 1:16 we see:

and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

Joseph's father is named Jacob.

In Luke 3 we see:

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

the son of Heli,

Heli would most likely be Mary's father.

--
Matthew Henry's commentary:

2. His pedigree, v. 23, etc. Matthew had given us somewhat of this. He goes no higher than Abraham, but Luke brings it as high as Adam. Matthew designed to show that Christ was the son of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth are blessed, and that he was heir to the throne of David; and therefore he begins with Abraham, and brings the genealogy down to Jacob, who was the father of Joseph, and heir-male of the house of David: but Luke, designing to show that Christ was the seed of the woman, that should break the serpent's head, traces his pedigree upward as high as Adam, and begins it with Ei, or Heli, who was the father, not of Joseph, but of the virgin Mary. And some suggest that the supply which our translators all along insert here is not right, and that it should not be read which, that is, which Joseph was the son of Heli, but which Jesus; he was the son of Joseph, of Eli, of Matthat, etc., and he, that is, Jesus, was the son of Seth, of Adam, of God, v. 38. The difference between the two evangelists in the genealogy of Christ has been a stumbling-block to infidels that cavil at the word, but such a one as has been removed by the labours of learned men, both in the early ages of the church and in latter times, to which we refer ourselves. Matthew draws the pedigree from Solomon, whose natural line ending in Jechonias, the legal right was transferred to Salathiel, who was of the house of Nathan, another son of David, which line Luke here pursues, and so leaves out all the kings of Judah. It is well for us that our salvation doth not depend upon our being able to solve all these difficulties, nor is the divine authority of the gospels at all weakened by them; for the evangelists are not supposed to write these genealogies either of their own knowledge or by divine inspiration, but to have copied them out of the authentic records of the genealogies among the Jews, the heralds' books, which therefore they were obliged to follow; and in them they found the pedigree of Jacob, the father of Joseph, to be as it is set down in Matthew; and the pedigree of Heli, the father of Mary, to be as it is set down here in Luke. And this is the meaning of hoµs enomizeto (v. 23), not, as it was supposed, referring only to Joseph, but uti sancitum est lege-as it is entered into the books, as we find it upon record; by which is appeared that Jesus was both by father and mother's side the Son of David, witness this extract out of their own records, which any one might at that time have liberty to compare with the original, and further the evangelists needed not to go; nay, had they varied from that, they had not gained their point. Its not being contradicted at that time is satisfaction enough to us now that it is a true copy, as it is further worthy of observation, that, when those records of the Jewish genealogies had continued thirty or forty years after these extracts out of them, long enough to justify the evangelists therein, they were all lost and destroyed with the Jewish state and nation; for now there was no more occasion for them.
One difficulty occurs between Abraham and Noah, which gives us some perplexity, v. 35, 36. Sala is said to be the son of Cainan, and he the son of Arphaxad, whereas Sala was the son of Arphaxad (Gen. 10:24; 11:12), and there is no such man as Cainan found there. But, as to that, it is sufficient to say that the Seventy Interpreters, who, before our Saviour's time, translated the Old Testament into Greek, for reasons best known to themselves inserted that Cainan; and St. Luke, writing among the Hellenist Jews, was obliged to make use of that translation, and therefore to take it as he found it.
The genealogy concludes with this, who was the son of Adam, the son of God.

(1.) Some refer it to Adam; he was in a peculiar manner the son of God, being, more immediately than any of his offspring, the offspring of God by creation.
(2.) Others refer it to Christ, and so make the last words of this genealogy to denote his divine and human nature. He was both the Son of Adam and the Son of God that he might be a proper Mediator between God and the sons of Adam, and might bring the sons of Adam to be, through him, the sons of God.

--
Dr Vernon McGee:

The genealogy in this chapter is Mary’s, which reveals two facts. First, it goes back to Adam, the father of the human family. Jesus was truly human. Matthew, in presenting Jesus as king, traces the genealogy back only as far as Abraham. Luke, in presenting Jesus as man, goes back to Adam. In the second place, Mary was descended from David through another than Solomon; that is, from David’s son Nathan

--

Thanks.
I read only the lineage of Joseph in Matthew and Luke because Matthew 1:16 says "Jacob the father of Joseph" and Luke 3:23 "Joseph the son of Heli." At the same time, Mary's lineage is traced in either Matthew or Luke as her father is not named in both Luke and Matthew.

[Same Hakeem]

Ok, but Mary could still be descendant of David even if none of the genealogies in the gospels trace her descent to David, which would make Jesus a descendant of David according to the flesh through Mary. Even if none of the genealogies are actually Mary's (and that's not clear at all) it doesn't mean she can't be a descendant of David. It would simply mean her genealogy isn't listed in the gospels.

by their fathers' houses, according to the number of names from twenty years old and upward, head by head."

(Numbers 1:18)

[JonathanL]

by their fathers' houses, according to the number of names from twenty years old and upward, head by head."

(Numbers 1:18)

Where in that text does it state that lineage is never traced through a person's mother?

[Same Hakeem]

Where in that text does it state that lineage is never traced through a person's mother?

"by their fathers' houses"

[ReformedApologist]

The Torah does not specifically state anywhere that matrilineal descent should be used; however, there are several passages in the Torah where it is understood that the child of a Jewish woman and a non-Jewish man is a Jew, and several other passages where it is understood that the child of a non-Jewish woman and a Jewish man is not a Jew. So your incorrect Hakeem.

http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm

[Same Hakeem]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...2&version=NKJVhttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage...24&version=NLT

[ReformedApologist]

Again Jeremiah 22:30 does not refute the fact Jesus was not a Jew. As stated in previous post Jesus was adopted by Joseph legally not biologically so the curse does not effect him at all. In fact Haggai 2:23 speaks of Zerubbabel who was his grandson and the rabbis speak of his repentance

Sanhedrin 37b-38a

R. Johanan said: "Exile atones for everything, for it is written, Thus saith the Lord, write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah. Whereas after he [the king] was exiled, it is written, And the sons of Jechoniah, -- the same is Assir -- Shealtiel his son etc.(1) [He was called] Assir, because his mother conceived him in prison. Shealtiel, because God did not plant him in the way that others are planted. We know by tradition that a woman cannot conceive in a standing position. [yet she] did conceive standing. Another interpretation: Shealtiel, because God obtained [of the Heavenly court] absolution from His oath."(2)