Posted on 03/12/2015 6:55:28 PM PDT by RnMomof7
For more than a century, J. C. Ryle was best known for his plain and lively writings on practical and spiritual themes. His great aim in his entire ministry was to encourage strong and serious Christian living. But Ryle was not naive in his understanding of how this should be done. He recognized that, as a pastor of the flock of God, he had a responsibility to guard Christ's sheep and to warn them whenever he saw approaching dangers. His penetrating comments are as wise and relevant today as they were when he first wrote them. His sermons and other writings have been consistently recognized, and their usefulness and impact have continued to the present day, even in the outdated English of the author's own day.
Why then should expositions already so successful and of such stature and proven usefulness require adaptation, revision, rewrite or even editing? The answer is obvious. To increase its usefulness to today's reader, the language in which it was originally written needs updating.
Though his sermons have served other generations well, just as they came from the pen of the author in the nineteenth century, they still could be lost to present and future generations, simply because, to them, the language is neither readily nor fully understandable.
My goal, however, has not been to reduce the original writing to the vernacular of our day. It is designed primarily for you who desire to read and study comfortably and at ease in the language of our time. Only obviously archaic terminology and passages obscured by expressions not totally familiar in our day have been revised. However, neither Ryle's meaning nor intent has been tampered with.
Tony Capoccia
All Scripture references are taken from the HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION (C) 1978 by the New York Bible Society, used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers.
Ping
One of the greatest Idol worship is the hearsay Bible full of contradictions. Was Jesus related to David? No way. Read Matthew 1 and then Luke 3:23. Which one is right? What a belly laughing joke.
In both accounts Jesus’ line traces back to David.
Matthew 1:
6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
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,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,(KJV)
Both trace back to David. Not only through Joseph but also Mary. It’s there what do you have to say now.
I will be very observant at Mass next Sunday and if I see any idolatry going on, I will call it to the attention of the priest right away. He is quite strict and will clean it up immediately!!!.......so there
I will be very observant at Mass next Sunday and if I see any idolatry going on, I will call it to the attention of the priest right away. He is quite strict and will clean it up immediately!!!.......so there
The Catholic Church chops dead people up in little pieces and send them to special people and places all over the world. It is necromancy. It is forbidden by the Torah.
Wow. What perfect timing, dare I say providence. I am going through 1 Corinthians in SS and this week we take up the second part of Chapter 10. The early church of which Paul was addressing was in danger of religious syncretism so described. We deceive ourselves (as we are so prone) to think this was only a first century habit of worshiping stone, wood and metal images. I know mine full well and none are shaped as such. Paul makes no exception for the strong man who will “handle temptation” as there is no such man who will not fall. “Flee” instead.
The pleas of "can't we all just get along" and cries of "we are all Christians" begging for "tenderness" in calling out heresies against scripture has led to "tolerance" of them.
Making that cracker into an image of Christ and worshipping it would be a good start.
Somebody has taken Comparative Religion class in college.
There are certain folks who have made an idol of the KJV bible.
I do not know what they expect Spaniards, or Germans, or Japanese, or Malaysians to read and understand.
Although; if it was good enough for St. Paul; it ought to be good enough for the rest of us.
The first account you posted was the genealogy through Joseph, the second through Mary.
They aren’t the same obviously, Joseph’s ancestry includes Jechonias, who cannot be a direct g/father of Jesus according to what God told the prophet Jeremiah.
Of course.
Joseph’s line was established as of the House of David in Matthew. It fits contextually as the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.
In Luke’s account we know the line of Messiah coming not through Solomon but Nathan.
Makes sense.
No that is not the case. Both are only to Joseph. There is absolutely no reference to Mary. Surely you know that but the most glaring error you make is considering Joseph in Jesus’s blood line. You know that is not true because Jesus was the Son of God— right? If He wasn’t the Son of God then we have a huge problem.
Both Matthew and Luke show us the line from Jesus to Abraham. Luke goes back to Adam. If one properly applies the context of literary style, culture, and history then there is no problem with the text. We know Jesus was not of the literal seed of Joseph. We see here:
Luke 1:
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”
34 Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.
The above provides the context for the genealogy of Jesus Christ in Luke chapter 3. We know from Matthew 1 that Joseph is not the biological son of Heli but the joined son-in-law of Heli (Luke 3).
Genealogies must be looked at from the historical and cultural perspective of the time. If that is not considered then the exegesis will be flawed.
What is missing from this discussion is your point of argument. Is it your proposition that since the genealogies of Luke and Matthew are not exactly the same it puts the Scriptures in question? Or that we need an self proclaimed infallible magesterium to figure these tough matters out for us and thus must submit to them to get the right answers?
If both propositions are not accurate, then are you casting doubt on Scriptures from a Muslim or atheist perspective?
Now read luke 3:23!!heavens!!
23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being ... the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
It refers to the father of Joseph— does it not?
Joseph (who didn't bother to go to the Crucifixion) is not the father of Jesus. God is the father of Jesus and these linage's of Joseph, my friend, are a big old fat ERRORS.
So your contention is the Scriptures as given are in error. Then how do you come to your infallible conclusion of fulfilled prophecy through the royal line of David?
Of course your language in your response shows a certain immaturity as if you 'know better.' You also leave out portions of scriptures which do show us the proper exegesis.
And no, sir, the error is all your own and not a translation error. Given the proper context and historical/cultural considerations, Matthew and Luke properly placed differing genealogies. One through the adoptive Jewish father (as was custom for those adopted) and one of the seed line through Mary's genealogy.
Of course, hopefully, we will find out what 'axe' you have to grind soon. I see you don't like the KJV or anything to do with Protestants or Evangelicals. So is this a Bible translation error you are having difficulty with; or a written Word of God issue; or that your church has provided you the answers through sacred tradition? Or, you receive personal revelations which are more authoritative than scriptures? Also if you have a 'better' translation which clears up these matters, please do share so I can examine.
For in one post you said there was error because of the cursed line of Jeconiah. Then you took issue with "professional Christians" (whatever that means, don't know).
Please do tell what really vexes you on these passages.
what DID God tell the prophet Jeremiah?
If I thought you honestly didn’t know what I was referring to, I’d tell you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.