|
THE CONSEQUENCE OF ATTRIBUTING LINEAGES TO A MAN WHO HAD NO LINEAGE The uniqueness of Jesus (Peace be upon him) as the Muslims see it is his miraculous birth, being born of the Virgin Mary. This was a greater miracle than arising out of Royal descent. But Mathew and Luke for some reason couldn't just see it that way, they were hell bent on fulfilling Old Testament prophecies, so what did they do; they manufactured one for him. The story begins at the annunciation. Luke 1:34-35
Jesus's followers claimed that he was GOD's illegitimate son, conceived out of wedlock and without a biological father. But, regardless, they say Jesus's mother's husband, Joseph, adopted him, so he had a real father after that. BLUNDER: GUESS WHO ENTERS INTO THE DIVINE LINEAGE OF JESUS The book of Genesis records in chapter 38 a story in which Judas (the father of the Jewish race) commits incest. He is tricked into sleeping with a harlot; who turns out to be his daughter-in-law. And word went around that she had a child by whoredom. Tamar, the prostitute was to give birth to twins whom would be named Pharez and Zarah. This clear act of illegitimacy and incest conception was in blatant violation of the Law. So when we read at Mathew 1:3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; A prostitute and the product of incest becomes honoured in the lineage of Jesus. Despite the many injunctions in Bible ostracising sinners from the house of God for generations. A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the ANOTHER BLUNDER, THE MESSIAH IS GIVEN A CURSED LINEAGE But, St. Matthew felt that if the Messiah was to come, he had to be specifically descended through the bloodlines of kings David, Solomon, and Asa (see below), just to prove to the Jews that he was the specific Messiah mentioned in several prophecies. Being so eager to present Jesus as fulfilling this requirement, St. Matthew presents his readers with a lineage for Jesus going through his adopted father, Joseph, and through kings Asa and Solomon, all the way back to king David (Matt 1:1). But, this presents him with a Trilemma, a Trinity of problems:
Jeremiah 22:24,28-30
The Branch of Jeconiah is damned forever. Jeconiah was carried away into exile and died there. His grandson, Zerub'babel, returned, but, true to the curse, never returned to the throne. And, none from their lineage has ever since. In a confused attempt to graft Jesus into a messianic line, the overeager Matthew ended up grafting Jesus into the cursed lineage branch. Ironically, for all their discrepancies, this is one of the few points at which Matthew's version of the genealogy and Luke's actually agree. Both gospel tales list Jesus's lineage as running through Zerub'babel and Sheal'tiel, two of the cursed descendents of Jeconiah. Also see Isaiah 14:18 for more Abominable Branch references. Suspiciously, Matthew has omitted the name of King Jehoiakim in his list. He left Jeconiah in, though. The Genealogy: Matthew and Luke Contradict The fact of Jeconiah being in Jesus's adopted genealogy has caused an enormous headache for Christian-Paulian theologians over the past centuries, and still does till this day. Although the average person never learns of this because they rarely address this topic. This and the fact that Luke and Matthew contradict one another in the names of Joseph's ancestors has caused some frantic apologisers, in desperation, to claim that Luke's version of the lineage was "really" Mary's side of the family despite the fact that Luke states flatly that it is Joseph's, and that there is no evidence to support their suggestion (Luke 3:23): And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,There is no support for the notion that it is Mary's line. It is merely wishful thinking. But, deceptively, some bibles add a bit of misleading editorial commentary at the top of Luke 3:23 saying the genealogy is the "line of Mary". That's quite an assertion to make considering it has no scriptural support. The casual reader may accept this charade as if it's really part of the Bible, and moves on without question. Still, pretending that the lineage that Luke gives is Mary's makes no difference. As we have already pointed out, it is part of the Cursed Branch of Jeconiah (remember, it runs through Jeconiah's son and grandson, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel), and thus makes Jesus an invalid candidate for being the messiah. Others have tried to explain the contradictions between Luke's version of the line and Matthew's by speculating that perhaps the two men listed as Jesus' paternal grandfathers might have been brothers, and that a levirate marriage (a custom of having engaging in sexual intercourse with your dead brother's wife when he dies childless; the child was then considered to be the legal offspring of the dead man) may have been what gave us Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. There is no biblical support for this speculation in this case, and this combined with the fact that it cuts Jesus off from the lineage from kings Solomon and Asa, has led most Christian theologians to abandon it. But, there are other problems with the lineage Luke gives Jesus. The Messiah's Throne Line: David, Solomon, Asa Besides contradicting Matthew's version, and besides running through the Cursed Branch, the lineage that St. Luke gives for Jesus is problematic because it does not go through kings Solomon and Asa. The messiah's lineage must run through these kings too, as we see in GOD's throne promise:
Here, GOD is granting the same promise he made to David to David's descendents. The promise states that if David's descendents follow GOD, then the descendents of their line will have the right to David's throne. King Asa qualified because he was wholly true to GOD. King Asa: A Man after King David's Heart
King Solomon wasn't as good, but for the sake of the promise GOD had made to David, his descendents were assured too:
Here, "offspring" is the Hebrew word, ZERA', which is always used in a physical sense, and often has a collective sense. However, the appended qualifier, "zaraka ... aser yese mimiika", or "who shall come directly from your own body", specifies that the offspring is one of the immediate sons of David (this is the same use of the word as in Genesis 15:4, and 2nd Samuel 16:11). And we see confirmation of this in 1 Chron 22:9-10. And, as it turns out, this son whose kingdom shall be eternal is Solomon: Solomon Builds the House of GOD Who is this house-building son, this immediate son of David? See 1st Chronicles 17:11 and 22:9-10, which both say this son will be David's own son, Solomon:
In this instance, GOD unconditionally declares that Solomon's throne will be established forever. It is a statement of fact. Later, he also makes similar promises as a reward for Solomon's good behaviour. However, he has already promised David that when Solomon (his house-building, directly-from-your-body son) sins, GOD will punish him but not revoke his right to the Throne line (2nd Sam 7:12, above), and Solomon's Throne will indeed be established forever. Whatever may be said of Solomon (he did not live up to the role model of his father, David), king Asa's throne lineage is undeniably eternal too, just as David's is. So, simply said, the lineage of the messiah must go through kings David, Solomon, and Asa, undeniably. The genealogy that Luke gives in his tale does not. And, both his version and Matthew's list Jesus as being part of the Cursed Branch of Jeconiah. All of this presents serious problems for those wishing to attach Jesus to the royal Davidic Throne. It would have been better for them to have left the lineages out of the Gospels. Not because it would hide the discrepancies and confusion. But because the lineage is irrelevant to Jesus; as he was born miraculously. And attempting to foster a lineage upon him has only created more problems that it solved.
|