A useless genealogy

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>Joe Alward:



>Take a look at Helms one more time:

>

>"Fourteen equals two 'weeks' of generations, and three two week

>periods

>(14 +14+14) equal six 'weeks' of pre-Christian generations in the

>royal

>line of Israel; thus, with Jesus begins the seventh, the

>'sabbath' week

>of Jewish monarchical history--the kingdom, restored under

>Christ.

>Matthew included a genealogy not because he was really interested

>in the

>ancestry of Jesus--presumably he had the wits to grasp the

>pointlessness

>of tracing the genealogy of Joseph, who his own narrative denies

>is

>Jesus' father--but because he was interested in the pattern, the

>prophetic fulfillment".

>

>RevGaud

>Helms' little foray into biblical numbers is predicated on the

>fact that Jesus would begin the seventh week BECAUSE HE WAS

>MESSIAH. However, since Jesus is not Joseph's son, he doesn't

>start any week, final or not, because he is NOT the son of David.

>Can you not see this, Joe? There is NO prophetic fulfilment if

>Jesus is not Joseph's son and thus not the son of David, on

>which, I say again, HelmS bases his SILLY THEORY. How can you

>miss this, Joe?



>RevGaud

>Wrong! And it doesn't matter what reason Matthew uses, it doesn't

>matter because the genealogy is said to be Jesus' (v1 "The book

>of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of

>Abraham.") but we know that it isn't so because Joseph, on whom

>this genealogy is based, is not Jesus' father. So all of Helms'

>assertions (read: dreams) are based on Jesus being Messiah and

>they fall because this genealogy cannot be used to establish that

>Jesus is Messiah which is the reason Matthew includes it, Helm's

>wild speculations notwithstanding. In point of fact, none of the

>two genealogies can be applied to Jesus because they're both

>based on Joseph and he wasn't Jesus' father. This is simple to

>understand and I really don't see how you can miss this. You've

>been suckered in by Helms' very vivid imagination. You've fallen

>for yet another lame how-it-could-have-been scenario. This is

>just another far-fetched defense set up to "save the day" so the

>NT can have some meaning and Jesus' butt, as Messiah, can be

>salvaged. And it's lame attempt at that.


Ray
You are wrong about Helms reverend. Helms is simply giving a reason why
Matthew made up the story. He is most definitely not trying to "save the
day". Randal Helms wrote the book Gospel Fictions and is most definitely
not a believer.

Regards, Ray

• Previous message: A useless genealogy
• Next message: A useless genealogy
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]