Penalty of converting to Christianity

Penalty of converting to Christianity - Printable Version

+- Forums (https://bb.islamsms.com)
+-- Forum: ENGLISH (https://bb.islamsms.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Discussion of Beliefs (https://bb.islamsms.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Penalty of converting to Christianity (/showthread.php?tid=7373)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Penalty of converting to Christianity - AlShamms - 04-22-2006

Peace.....

Muslimah, you pose two very different questions which both require lengthy answers. Namely, The lineage of Jesus and, how was Jesus Christ the only begotten son of God. I'll tackle the first here the lineage question. Also, you seem confused on the fact that there was a man who was the son of Jacob named Joseph who came before Moses AND there was a man named Joseph who was thought to be the father of Jesus Christ.....two different men, same name.

Both Matthew and Luke give a genealogical list for the descent of Jesus. When these are compared, differences and difficulties appear immediately. The most obvious difference is that Matthew's list begins with Abraham and descends to Jesus, whereas Luke's list begins with Jesus and ascends to Adam, the son of God. This in itself presents no difficulty; but when comparing, it is quite another matter. Of course only Luke gives the generations from Adam to Abraham, and the lists of progenitors between Abraham and David as given by Matthew and Luke are nearly identical. No problem comes until we compare the two versions of the succession from David to Jesus.

The comparison presents two problems; the difference in the number of generations and the dissimilarity of names.

The first problem, the difference in the number of generations, is the easier to resolve. Although it is true that Matthew lists twenty-six progenitors between David and Jesus, compared with Luke's forty, two factors must be kept in mind. First, it is not uncommon for the generations in one line of descent to increase more rapidly than in another. Second, and more important, in Jewish thinking son might mean "grandson," or, even more generally, "descendant" (as "Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham," Matt. 1:1).

Similarly, begat does not necessarily mean "was the actual (that is, immediate) father of" but instead may simply indicate real descent. Just the fact that

Matthew casts his list in the form of three groups of fourteen generations suggests this was a convenient though arbitrary arrangement from which some generations may have been omitted. In fact, it can be shown that Matthew's list has omissions (2Kings 8:24; 1 Chron. 3:11; 2 Chron. 22:1,11; 24:27; 2Kings 23:34;24:6). Omission of generations in biblical genealogies is not unique to this case, and Jews are known to have done it freely. The purpose of a genealogy was not to account for every generation, but to establish the fact of an undoubted succession, including especially the more prominent ancestors.

The second problem is more difficult to resolve. In the two lists of succession, between David and Joseph all the names are different except Shealtiel and Zerabbabel.

Julius Africanus (d. A.D. 240) suggested that Matthew gives the

genealogy of Joseph through his actual father, Jacob, but Luke

gives Joseph's genealogy through his legal father, Heli. In this

view, Heli died childless. His half-brother, Jacob, who had the same

mother but a different father, married Heli's widow and by her had

Joseph. Known as levirate marriage, this action meant that physically

Joseph was the son of Jacob and legally the son of Heli. Jacob was

the descendant of David through David's son Solomon, and Heli was

the descendant of David through David's son Nathan. Thus, by both

legal and physical lineage Joseph had a rightful claim to the

Davidic throne and so would his legal (but not physical) son Jesus.

Matthew gives Joseph's physical lineage, Luke his legal lineage.

In his classic work, The Virgin Birth of Christ, J. Gresham Machen

argued for the view that Matthew gives the legal descent of Joseph

whereas for the most part (he does allow for levirate marriage or

transfer of lineage to a collateral line in Joseph's physical line),

Luke gives the physical descent. Although the physical and legal

lines are reversed, the purpose is still to establish Joseph's

rightful claim to the Davidic throne. This view holds that

Solomon's line failed in Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) (Jer. 22:30). But

when the kingly line through Solomon became extinct, the living

member of the collateral line of Nathan (Shealtiel, Matt. 1:23,

cf. Luke 3:27) inherited the title to the throne. Thus, Maechen

asserts, Matthew is tracing the legal heirship to the throne from

David, through Solomon, through Jeconiah, with transfer to a

collateral line at the point. Luke traces the physical descent

(with a possibility of jumps to a collateral line or levirate

marriages) to David through Nathan. Matthew starts with the

question, Who is the heir to David's throne? Luke starts with

the question, Who is Joseph's father?

A third view suggests that the apparent conflict between the

two genealogies of Joseph results from mistakenly assuming

Luke is intending to give Joseph's genealogy. Instead it should

be understood as Mary's genealogy. Joseph's name stands in for

Mary's by virtue of the fact that he had become son or heir of

Heli (Mary's father) by his marriage to her. This view holds

that Heli died with no sons, and that Mary became his heiress

(Num. 27:1-11; 36:1-12). The first of these passages seems to

provide for the preservation of the name of the man who dies

with daughters but no sons. In the case of Heli and his daughter,

Mary, this could have been accomplished by Joseph's becoming

identified with Mary's family. Joseph would be included in

the family genealogy, although the genealogy is really Mary's.

Thus the genealogies of Matthew and Luke diverge from David

on because Matthew traces the Davidic descent of Joseph, and

Luke the Davidic descent of Mary (with Joseph's name standing in).

Each of the three proposals discussed thus far would resolve the apparent conflict between the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. Each also appears to be within the realm of reasonable possibility. It must be pointed out that all three, however, rely upon conjecture that is possible but far from certain. In the first two views one must appeal to levirate marriages or collateral lines to resolve difficulties. The third view rests on the conjecture that Joseph takes Mary's place in the genealogy. In addition, the first must explain why Luke rather than Matthew is interested in the legal lineage of Joseph. Both the

first and second views must explain why Luke, in light of his apparent interest in and close association with Mary, would be concerned with Joseph's genealogy at all. Interested as he was in Jesus's humanity, birth, and childhood, why would Luke give the genealogy of the man who was Jesus' legal but not physical father? These questions are not unanswerable, but they do leave the field open for a view less dependent on conjecture, one that does not raise these questions.

This view understands the genealogy in Luke really to be Mary's, but for different reasons. Here Heli is understood to be the progenitor of Mary, not of Joseph. Joseph is not properly part of the genealogy, and is mentioned only parenthetically, Luke 3:23 should then read "Jesus ... was the son (so it was thought, of Joseph) of Heli." The support for this view is impressive:

a. Placing the phrase "so it was thought, of Joseph" in

parentheses, and thus in effect removing it from the

genealogy, is grammatically justified. In the Greek text

Joseph's name occurs with the Greek definite article

prefixed; every other name in the series has the article.

By this device Joseph's name is shown to be not properly

a part of the genealogy. Jesus was only thought to be his

son. This would make Jesus the son (that is, grandson or

descendant) of Heli, Mary's progenitor, and is consistent

with Luke's account of Jesus' conception, which makes clear

that Joseph was not his physical father (Luke 1:26-39).

b. This view allows the most natural meaning of begat to stand.

In other words, begat refers to actual physical descent

rather than to jumps to collateral lines.

c. Matthew's interest in Jesus' relation to the Old Testament and

the Messianic kingdom makes it appropriate that he give Joseph's

really descent from David through Solomon - a descent that is

also Jesus' legal descent - and thus gives him legal claim to

the Davidic throne.

d. Because Luke emphasizes the humanity of Jesus, his solidarity

with the human race, and the universality of salvation, it is

fitting that Luke show his humanity by recording his human

descent through his human parent, Mary. His pedigree is then

traced back to Adam.

e. The objection that Mary's name is not in Luke's version needs

only the reply that women were rarely included in Jewish

genealogies; though giving her descent, Luke conforms to

custom by not mentioning her by name. The objection that Jews

never gave the genealogy of women is met by the answer that

this is a unique case; Luke is talking about a virgin birth.

How else could the physical descent of one who had no human

father be traced? Furthermore, Luke has already shown a

creative departure from customary genealogical lists by

starting with Jesus and ascending up the list of ancestors

rather than starting at some point in the past and descending

to Jesus.

f. This view allows easy resolution of the difficulties surrounding

Jeconiah (Matt. 1:11), Joseph's ancestor and David's descendant

through Solomon. In 2 Sam. 7:12-17 the perpetuity of the

Davidic Kingdom though Solomon (vv. 12-13) is unconditionally

promised. Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) later was the royal

representative of that line of descent for which eternal

perpetuity had been promised. Yet for his gross sin (2 Chron.

24:8-9), Jeconiah was to be recorded as if childless, and

no descendant of his would prosper on the Davidic throne

(Jer. 22:30). This poses a dilemma. It is Jeconiah through

whom the Solomonic descent and legal right to the throne

properly should be traced. Solomon's throne had already

been unconditionally promised eternal perpetuity. Yet Jeconiah

will have no physical descendants who will prosper on that

throne. How may both the divine promise and the curse be

fulfilled?

First, notice that Jeremiah's account neither indicates

Jeconiah would have no seed, nor does is say Jeconiah's line

has had its legal claim to the throne removed by his sin. The

legal claim to the throne remains with Jeconiah's line, and

Matthew records that descent down to Joseph. In 1:16, Matthew

preserves the virgin birth of Jesus and at the same time makes

clear that Jesus does not come under the curse upon Jeconiah.

He breaks the pattern and carefully avoids saying that Joseph

(a descendant of Jeconiah) begat Instead he refers to "Joseph,

the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus." In the

English translation the antecedent of "whom" is ambiguous.

But in the Greek text, "whom" is feminine singular in form

and can refer only to Mary who was not a descendant of

Jeconiah. As to human parentage, Jesus was born of Mary alone,

through Joseph his legal father. As Jesus' legal father,

Joseph's legal claim passed to Jesus. But because Jesus was

not actually Jeconiah's seed, although of actual Davidic

descent through Mary, descendant of Nathan, Jesus escaped

the curse on Jeconiah's seed pronounced in Jeremiah (22:30.

Thus the problem is resolved.

What we have then are two different genealogies of two people. Probably even the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of Matthew and Luke are different persons. This view does not depend on conjecture, rests with evidence within the texts themselves, fits the purposes of the evangelists, and easily resolves the problem surrounding Jeconiah.

one other difficulty of lesser significance found in Matthew's record of Josephs's genealogy needs discussion here. In 1:17, Matthew divides the generations from Abraham to Christ into three groups of fourteen generations; from Abraham to David, from David to the deportation of Babylon, and from the deportation to Christ. In part, this was likely a device used by Matthew to aid memory; it does not imply that he mentioned every progenitor. At least five names are omitted: Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Jehoiakim, and Eliakim. As previously stated, this procedure was not unusual and presents no real problem.

With three groups of fourteen generations, however, one does expect to find forty two different names. But there are only forty-one. Although one set has only thirteen different names, the problem is only apparent. Matthew does not speak of forty-two different names but of three groups of fourteen generations, which he divides for himself. David's name concludes the first set and stands first in the second set (cf. 1:17). In other words, David is counted twice and is thus given special prominence in the genealogy that shows Jesus' Davidic throne rights through his legal father, Joseph. Another means used for increasing the focus on David is the title assigned to him in Matthew 1:6. He is called King David, and is the only person in the genealogy to whom a title is given. Possibly the Davidic emphasis is even further enhanced by the number 14. The sum of the numerical value of the Hebrew letters in the name David is 14. To the modern reader this might seem overly subtle, but it was not necessarily so in ancient Semitic thought. The numerical value of David's name, however, is not necessary to the resolution of this problem. Again, alleged discrepancies between and in the genealogical lists of Matthew and Luke are shown to be more apparent than real.

As I stated the explination is long, but hopefully clears up your question as to the geneology of Jesus through Mary (his physical mother) and Joseph (his legal, but not physical father).

My next post will tackle how God is the father of Christ, and how Christ is the begotten son of God.

Shamms

Penalty of converting to Christianity - wel_mel_2 - 04-29-2006

Bismillah:

Quote:Peace.....

Muslimah, you pose two very different questions which both require lengthy answers. Namely, The lineage of Jesus and, how was Jesus Christ the only begotten son of God. I'll tackle the first here the lineage question. Also, you seem confused on the fact that there was a man who was the son of Jacob named Joseph who came before Moses AND there was a man named Joseph who was thought to be the father of Jesus Christ.....two different men, same name.

I think you are aware of the book of Luke chapter 3…

"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," (Luke 3:23)

Please pay attention to the words - "(As was supposed).
Do you see that the words 'As was supposed' are written within brackets in your Bible? Why the brackets are there?

If you go to the "most ancient" manuscripts of Luke
, the words "As was supposed" are not there. Your translators felt that without this interpolation the ordinary Christians, not well grounded in faith, might slip and fall into the error of believing that Joseph the Carpenter was the actual physical father of Jesus. So they took the precaution of adding their own comment in brackets to avoid any misunderstanding. I am not trying to find fault with your system of adding words in brackets to suite what i believe, but what intrigues me is that in all translations of the Bible the words "as was supposed" are there but they have removed the brackets!. Couldn't the nations of the Earth besides the English understand the meaning and purpose of the brackets?

Why have you eliminated the brackets from other languages of the Bibles? If God Almighty did not see fit to preserve Luke from error, what right has anybody to add to or delete from words in the 'Book of God?'

Please note that The translator's own addition of words in brackets can easily be put into the mouth of St. Luke by merely removing the brackets, and by implication, if Luke was inspired by God to write what he did, then the interpolations automatically become the Word of God, which really is not the case.

Quote: Both Matthew and Luke give a genealogical list for the descent of Jesus. When these are compared, differences and difficulties appear immediately. The most obvious difference is that Matthew's list begins with Abraham and descends to Jesus, whereas Luke's list begins with Jesus and ascends to Adam, the son of God. This in itself presents no difficulty; but when comparing, it is quite another matter. Of course only Luke gives the generations from Adam to Abraham, and the lists of progenitors between Abraham and David as given by Matthew and Luke are nearly identical. No problem comes until we compare the two versions of the succession from David to Jesus.

The problem is that Jesus Christ,A man who had no genealogy, the Bibles authors invented 2 different list of genealogy for him. And what a genealogy! Six adulterers and offsprings of incest are imposed upon this holy man of God. Men and women deserving to be stoned to death according to God's own law, as revealed through Moses, and further to be ostracised and debarred from the House of God for generations

The bastard shall not enter the congregation of the Lord even unto the tenth generation."
(Deut. 23:2)

Mary was not mentioned in both genealogy then the interpretation have nothing to do with what the Bible said. Both genealogy started with the Phrases same or similar to “ and this is the genealogy of Jesus Christ” there is no Mary in the picture.

[Image: Image77.jpg]

SALAM

WAEL.

Penalty of converting to Christianity - Muslimah - 04-29-2006

Bismillah

salam Shamms

I m sorry for being so late to reply, however, I did read the long reply u posted. Thank u for taking the time, specially for clarifying the part of Joseph. Of course i m aware of Joseph the carpenter who is claimed to be father of Jesus (may Allah Forgive me), but I didnt know that he had two fathers Jacob and Helli.

Any way, u seem satisfied with this explanation to yourself, regadless the fact that u said there are contradictions which are difficult to resolve. As long as you are stasified then fine Alhamdulelah.

As for me, well........... :), I thought of stopping here but then said no harm to elaborate.

Logically speaking, without digging deep into both versions which have differences, Jesus is not supposed to have such a geneology to start with. Why would they actually start the bible which is a holy book with the geneology of jesus unless it is supposed to be of a special weight in confirming his special position. Whereas, what makes him really special totally contradicts the fact of having a geneology. I mean u r supposed to trace the seed, Mary was not but a container.

This is how I think.