King/Priest

[duxrow]

You could be BORN into a dynasty, or into the Tribe of Levi, but in the Old Testament they weren't allowed to be both a King and a Priest. (Melchizedek excepted) Now Rev 1:6 tells us we can be both!

In the OT it was King Saul, and later King Uzziah, who were punished for usurping the Priestly duties. 1Sam13:12, 2Chron 26:16

Jerusalem is the "City of the Great King", Matt5:35, and chapter one includes David's lineage and the Dynasty of a score of Jewish kings leading to the King of King's: JESUS. The names of the generations are all unique (no repeats) except for the two Jacobs.

Luke's Gospel accentuates a 'Priestly Line' by opening with Zacharias and Elisabeth; and this contrasts with the 'Kingly Line' of Matthew. There are many repeated names in Luke's genealogy, most if not all connected to the priesthood, and four (4) Josephs!

[David M]

You could be BORN into a dynasty, or into the Tribe of Levi, but in the Old Testament they weren't allowed to be both a King and a Priest. (Melchizedek excepted) Now Rev 1:6 tells us we can be both!

In the OT it was King Saul, and later King Uzziah, who were punished for usurping the Priestly duties. 1Sam13:12, 2Chron 26:16

Jerusalem is the "City of the Great King", Matt5:35, and chapter one includes David's lineage and the Dynasty of a score of Jewish kings leading to the King of King's: JESUS. The names of the generations are all unique (no repeats) except for the two Jacobs.

Luke's Gospel accentuates a 'Priestly Line' by opening with Zacharias and Elisabeth; and this contrasts with the 'Kingly Line' of Matthew. There are many repeated names in Luke's genealogy, most if not all connected to the priesthood, and four (4) Josephs!

Hello Dux

Melchizedek does appear to have been given a role of king and priest that would set the pattern of that greater one to come. Bread and wine might be staple foods of the day, but Jesus also took bread and wine and gave to his disciples. Right from the start in Genesis we have the pattern being laid down. We have the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent and everyone falls into one of these camps. We have the the basis of the priesthood laid down of which Jesus has become the ultimate priest having gained immortality. Jesus is acting as high priest now making intercession. He will also take up his position as king in Jerusalem when he returns.

Thanks for the post and food for thought.

David

[duxrow]

Roger that, David.. but some are "blinded" to the logic of the Author: the Holy Ghostwriter.
You could be BORN into a dynasty, or into the Tribe of Levi, but in the Old Testament they weren't allowed to be both a King and a Priest. (Melchizedek excepted) Now Rev 1:6 tells us we can be both!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Dux

Melchizedek does appear to have been given a role of king and priest that would set the pattern of that greater one to come. Bread and wine might be staple foods of the day, but Jesus also took bread and wine and gave to his disciples. Right from the start in Genesis we have the pattern being laid down. We have the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent and everyone falls into one of these camps. We have the the basis of the priesthood laid down of which Jesus has become the ultimate priest having gained immortality. Jesus is acting as high priest now making intercession. He will also take up his position as king in Jerusalem when he returns.

Thanks for the post and food for thought.

David
Good morning David,

I agree that all those patterns are "laid down" and integrate well with the overarching story of the Bible.

Just thought I'd let you know that I agree since we have disagreed about so many things. This is important because it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion if we can't find any point of agreement.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Roger that, David.. but some are "blinded" to the logic of the Author: the Holy Ghostwriter.
You could be BORN into a dynasty, or into the Tribe of Levi, but in the Old Testament they weren't allowed to be both a King and a Priest. (Melchizedek excepted) Now Rev 1:6 tells us we can be both!
Hey there Duxrow,

As you know, I'm not one who has been "blinded" to the kind of logic of which you speak, since I have written a whole book on the topic.

But it seems to me that you sometimes mistake your own mistaken logic for that of the "Holy Ghostwriter". For example, you claim that God designed the generations of Christ to match the 66 books of the Bible, but then you have to admit that the Bible is not actually trustworthy because God allowed Luke to err (or be miscopied, or whatever) by including an extra generation that ruins the pattern, along with many other problems that can only be fixed by appealing to logical fallacies such as special pleading. So the real question is this: How do you discern between your own fallacious logic and the "logic of the Author"?

[duxrow]

:nono: Hey Richard, Your words are NOT MINE - the shame is yours for not recognizing the 66 generations, or
denying the "hidden wisdom" like proof of the pudding is in the eating. The KING line based on Solomon (Matt 1) is contrasted with PRIEST line based on Nathan (Lk3).. a 66/76 or 10 gen diff that I venture to say is NOT in your 'Book'. :duck:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:nono: Hey Richard, Your words are NOT MINE - the shame is yours for not recognizing the 66 generations, or
denying the "hidden wisdom" like proof of the pudding is in the eating. The KING line based on Solomon (Matt 1) is contrasted with PRIEST line based on Nathan (Lk3).. a 66/76 or 10 gen diff that I venture to say is NOT in your 'Book'. :duck:
What are you talking about? You explicitly say that the genealogy in the BOOK OF LUKE as we have it in our Bible is WRONG and cannot be trusted. You can't blame me for the inconsistency of your logic.

The proof is most definitely NOT in the "eating" when it comes to patterns forced upon the text. The only "proof" you could have would be if the facts supported your assertions, and they simply do not. But you insist upon them anyway because you are impressed by the pattern that you have created with your fallacious logic. We've gone over this is extreme detail and I proved that there are so many problems with your "pattern of 66" that your claims simply cannot be justified by anyone seriously seeking the truth. Here is one of the interactions we have had on this topic from last March:





Of course, there is something else to consider, namely, OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. Your theory about the 66 generations is not convincing for many reasons. I've explained this many times and you just ignore it. So since you bring it up again, here again are the problems with it (copied from this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3001-The-33-66-Pattern&p=43259#post43259) in the The 33/66 Pattern (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3001-The-33-66-Pattern) thread from 4/18/2012).

The problem I have with the genealogies is that they are quite unreliable and confused. You have to manipulate the data to make it fit your pattern. That's why it doesn't seem like it's real. Here are the facts that make it look unreliable:

1) Luke contradicts your pattern when he says there are 21 generations from Adam to Abraham.

2) Matthew contradicts your pattern when he says that Jospeh was Mary's "aner" (man/husband), whereas you say that Joseph was really Mary's father. This point alone makes the pattern very suspect since no translator agrees with your interpretation.

3) You include "Assir" as a son of Jechoniah whereas 9 out of the 15 translations of that verse listed on this page (http://bible.cc/1_chronicles/3-17.htm) don't agree that it is a name at all, but translate it as "prisoner" or "captive."

4) You omit Pedaiah who is explicitly stated to have been the father of Zerubabbel in 1 Chronicles 3:19 which contradicts the other texts that say he was the son of Salathiel. Believers have suggested various ways to harmonize this contradiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerubbabel#Son_of_Shealtiel_or_Pedaiah) by speculating about a possible Levirate marriage or that the title "son of Shealtiel" does not refer to being a biological son but to being a member in Shealtiel's "household." There is no way for us to know the true solution. It could just be another error like Luke's inclusion of Cainan.

Any one of these four problems is sufficient to destroy the pattern you have found. The four of them together make your pattern entirely unbelievable. That's why the whole thing seems vain to me. The Bible is filled with errors, and the genealogies are the least reliable of all. I don't see how anyone could have any confidence that there is a real pattern in the genealogies since you had to manipulate the data too much to get the pattern and your pattern directly contradicts the conclusions of many biblical scholars as well as the plain text of Scripture. If you have any regard for the Bible as the true "Word of God" how can you think that he would encode a message in such an uncertain, contradictory, and confusing way? Could any serious scholar have any confidence that the pattern is really there if it requires so much manipulation to make it appear? I think not.

That's what I told you last April. You never were able to answer those questions. Therefore, I have no reason to think that the pattern is legitimate.

Now compare this with the Bible Wheel. It requires no manipulation of the data at all. The patterns are quite plain and obvious, and the are deep and profound. Even as an unbeliever I am still impressed by this evidence. It is ten thousand light years beyond the little fragmentary pattern in the genealogy that you find so very convincing. So I guess my guess was correct. Folks are pretty much only impressed by things they discover for themselves ... except when it comes to real science like the Periodic Table, Atomic Theory, Relativity, and stuff like that.

Thanks! It's much better. I'm really glad the bell was "rung" - it woke me up to Spring time. It made me aware of how short life is so I appreciate it more.

Shine on!

:sunny:

1) No disrespect to Luke, but someone inserted an added 'Cainan' in v.36; prob a copyist error from the true Cainan of v.37. The OT records all confirm Abram as 20th.

2) No hassle with Matthew, but translators have it wrong IMO--you don't think Mary could've had a father and husband both named Joseph?

3) See Ex6:24 AND 1Chr6:22 for Assir, son of Korah, and 1Chr6:23 AND 6:37 for son of Ebiasaph. So 'Assir' is legit name. :p

4) Phooey! Consider the move to Babylon and how the correct Zerubbabel is found in Ezra 3:2 AND 5:2.


Richard says: Any one of these four problems is sufficient to destroy the pattern you have found. The four of them together make your pattern entirely unbelievable. That's why the whole thing seems vain to me. The Bible is filled with errors..

WRONG! But as long as you persist in that attitude, you'll probably 'see' even more. Adjusting the POV of these four points will enable you to understand how the Holy Ghostwriter has 64 different names in the Pedigree of Jesus; only the name of Jacob found twice, both times as the father of Joseph.

Now look at that!

1) You agreed that Luke is WRONG. This means that the genealogies in the Bible cannot generally be trusted and so your house is founded on sand.

2) You merely asserted that the translators are wrong when they render "aner" as "husband" when in fact you have no example from any Greek literature that ever renders "aner" as father. This is the fallacy of special pleading. You made it up for one reason and one reason only - to force the Bible to conform to your pattern. No serious thinker would accept this kind of reasoning.

3) More special pleading. If your pattern required Assir to NOT be a name, you would be arguing for that position. This shows, yet again, that you are merely trying to force the Bible to fit the pattern you like.

4) More special pleading.