Genesis 49: 17 Commentary

THE MODERN TRIBE OF DAN WHERE ARE THEY NOW?

Also see post #1 if you are interested. Source of excerpt below:
http://www.ucg.org/ebooklet/throne-britain-its-biblical-origin-and-future/tuatha-de-danaan/

The Tuatha de Danaan
Brief history of the Tuatha de Danaan.
In our free brochure, The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy, we explain how a centuries-long migration was taking the 10 tribes from the areas of their Assyrian captivity to northwest Europe (be sure to request a copy if you haven’t already).
But it should be noted that there was some Israelite migration prior to the Assyrian captivity. The Danites, mariners in their own right and later more so with the Phoenicians, sailed far and wide over the seas. As we’ve seen, some settled in Greece and became known as the Danaans (again, see Appendix 2: “Were the Greeks Israelites?”).
Interestingly, all early histories of Ireland mention the arrival there of people from Greece called the Tuatha de Danaan. While some today equate them with ancient demigods or mythical fairy folk, they were definitely a genuinely historical people. The word tuath simply means “tribe.” Notice: “Old Irish ‘tuath,’ Welsh ‘tud’ (people, country), Breton ‘tud’ (people) and Gaulish ‘teuta’ (tribe) all come from Common Celtic towta, from the Indo-European word teuta (tribe)” (Dennis King, Focal an Lae: The Word of the Day in Irish, on-line at www.lincolnu.edu/~focal/backinst/focal114.htm). Tuatha de Danaan is thus the tribe of Danaan.
The Annals of Ireland report: “The Dan’ans were a highly civilized people, well skilled in architecture and other arts from their long residence in Greece, and their intercourse with the Phoenicians. Their first appearance in Ireland was 1200 B.C., or 85 years after the great victory of Deborah.”
The Tuatha de Danaan, then, must be synonymous with the Danaans of Greece and thus the Israelite tribe of Dan. This is not at all farfetched. Indeed, it is widely accepted that the Phoenicians established trading outposts or colonies as far away as the British Isles: “The Phoenicians are believed to have played an important part in spreading the early bronze culture by their trade in tin, which their ships brought to the eastern Mediterranean from Great Britain and Spain at least as early as 1100 BC” (”Industries, Extraction and Processing,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia, Vol 21, 1985, p. 424).
Yet what many often fail to realize is that the ancient maritime power designated as “Phoenicia” was actually an alliance between the city-states of Tyre and Sidon and the nation of Israel—in which Israel was the senior partner. The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia says: “In the time of Solomon, Phoenicians, accompanied by Hebrews, reached as far as England . . . England was therefore known to the Israelites and they may have sought a refuge there after the fall of their kingdom” (Vol. 1, p. 316).
King Solomon, we are told in Scripture, “had a fleet of ships of Tarshish at sea with the fleet of Hiram [the Phoenician king of Tyre]” (1 Kings:10:22, NRSV). Tarshish was an ancient port of southern Spain, also known as Tartessus. It was evidently named after Tarshish, the son of Javan (Genesis:10:4)—Javan (or Yavan) being the name for Greece in the Old Testament. As an early Ionian Greek settlement, it was actually an Israelite-Phoenician colony.

By TIUCHE (wrote 2756 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/5/2012 11:30 am

Okay Admin and thanks. May the Lord face shines upon us!

By TIUCHE (wrote 2756 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/14/2011 16:35 pm

Dear Admin: Charles would be happy if you banned me for two weeks and perhaps if you banned me forever, he would laugh like a shilpit adversary.
From now on every time he uses words that is offensive i will bring it to your attention. I do not even want to discuss with him things but every time i make a comment he would make a counter comment that are not meant to educate or search for what is true…his comments are meant to confuse and to muddle things…he wants confusion and not order!

I try my best not to be banned. God bless!

By TIUCHE (wrote 2756 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/14/2011 12:43 pm

Mr. Admin, are you going to take any real steps about Tiuche or have you decided to allow crackbrain behavior on VBVBC?

I am trying to maintain some kind of dignity here. It’s up to you to decide if you care for any dignity in your website.

Post 1 is laughable because Denmark did not take its name from Chinese… and for other reasons.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/13/2011 14:37 pm

Okay, Angel (post 23), so let’s explain what’s happening here. This is so typical of how people delude themselves:

1.You expected me to believe that Luke 3:23 means exactly the opposite of what it says (that Joseph son of Heli means Joseph NOT son of Heli!). This is the equivalent of expecting someone to believe that black is white or that circles have corners….Btw there is actually a good buddy of yours by the name of TIUCHE who, faced with a similar situation like yours, actually argued that a circle can have corners! He even said he learned this in geometry class (see post 110 under Gen. 1:3). And he believes it too! That’s what happens to people who try to prove something they know is false.

2.Your reason for claiming that Luke misspoke rested on a strange theory invented long ago by Bible apologists saying that Joseph was the son-in-law, not the son – not realizing perhaps that if this theory held true it would still make Luke wrong.

3.So I asked you to show me how the Bible sustains this theory.

4.You did not show me that. Instead you quoted extra-Biblical sources. Now that’s totally okay, but let me remind you that when I quoted the Genesis in Septuagint (which is not really extra-Biblical but a more genuine version of the Bible) you declared the Septuagint a FRAUD! You actually disavowed the Bible to defend the Bible!! This is how far delusion can take you.

But I digress. You went extra-Biblical but you weren’t able to provide the actual source (as I did in my Septuagint example). Instead you sent me a link to an apologia.

So: you are saying that this extra-biblical source which you have yet to find is right and the Bible is wrong! And you think that defends your point!?

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/12/2011 13:55 pm

charles:
the link is not the talmud. (babylonian or jerusalem) this link shows you the scriptures in the bible to fully understand the genealogy of matthew and luke. from old testament to new testament. if you had actually read it; you would of seen the discussion and explanation of its context. this article is from your orthodox church confirming the exact truth. discussed about the genealogy..

now in post 17 is from a jewish professor with a doctorate degree who states the same thing as i have been saying as well. notice this professor stated the same conclusion as the orthodox church. if you would of read this one it would of answered all your questions and you could of researched it as well.

By angel (wrote 240 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/12/2011 08:38 am

Re post 20. Angel, you said you answered my questions:

1. Where does the Bible tell us that Luke was doing this very strange and unusual thing of documenting Mary’s genealogy? And without even mentioning her!

2 Where does the Bible tell us that Heli was Mary’s father

Also, tell me where is it written that Mary had no brothers?

Angel, why do you say you answered my questions when you didn’t? Is this how you communicate?

The link you sent is not the actual Talmud but a commentary about it. If you find an actual translation of of the Talmud/Hagiga without a misleading commentary I would read it. Otherwise it is just a biased interpretation, and you have proved to me how extreme Bible apoligists can be in twisting the meaning of everything.

Knowing Jewish tradition the truth is much more likely that Mary would be mentioned in a genealogy of Joseph, as in Matthew, than the other way around.

Frankly I have my doubts if even Matthew’s genealogy was totally honest. Matthew limited the generations from David to Jesus to 28 for specific reasons which he explained in 1:17, while Luke’s generations for the same period number 42. That is so unlikely!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/10/2011 11:12 am

Angel:This site will profit those who with a sincere heart seeks after the truth, but those who are subverted…it will not at all profit them…it will just make them worse. So remember:

Matthew 15:14 Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit.

Titus 3:10 A man that is divisive after the first and second admonition reject;

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Titus 3:11Knowing that he that is such is perverted, and sins, being condemned of himself.

American King James Version
Titus 3:11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself.

Romans 16:17 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.

2 John 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.

By TIUCHE (wrote 2756 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/10/2011 10:14 am

to everyone on this sites:

god bless and i pray all is well.

i answered your questions charles but obviously you didn’t read the article so maybe you will read an article from your very own orthodox church on the genealogies. here is the link for all to view for themselves. and as eduardo stated “please do the research.” and then pray upon it.

http://www.biblesearchers.com/yahshua/maschiach/joachim.shtml

hagigah 2:4 in the jerusalem talmud states who mary’s father is. this is documented by jewish rabbi’s along with manuscripts. also states why matthew and luke were written the way they were written.

god bless you all always. and may our lord and saviour shine his light upon us so we can reflect our lord jesus christ to the world. amen.

By angel (wrote 240 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/10/2011 05:04 am

Angel, you haven’t answered my two questions in post 15.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/10/2011 01:14 am

posts 16 and 17 go together.

god bless you all always.

By angel (wrote 240 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/10/2011 00:10 am

here charles:

god bless you always. here is an article published by a jewish professor discussing this very topic of genealogies. i shall let him explain it and then you can tell me he is wrong later. ok. we got a deal. please read don’t just skim though it.

( by: dr. arnold g. fruchtenbaum )
Among the passages deemed “unnecessary” were the many genealogies. Yet, the frequency with which genealogies appear in the Scriptures is evidence of their importance. Genealogies established one’s Jewishness, one’s tribal identity, one’s right to the priesthood and one’s right to kingship.

From all the genealogies in the Hebrew Scriptures, two observations become apparent. With very rare exceptions, only the male line is traced and only men’s names appear. The descendancy of women is not given and their names are only mentioned in passing. Since biblically it was the father who determined both national and tribal identity, it was reasoned that only his line was necessary.

In addition, only one line is traced from the beginning to the end of the biblical history, the line of King David. The Scriptures reveal every name before David (Adam to David) and every name after David (David to Zerubbabel). Since the Messiah was to be of the house of David, this can also be labeled as the messianic line. In fact, the genealogies limit more and more the human origin of the Messiah. As the Seed of the woman, Messiah had to come out of humanity. As the Seed of Abraham, Messiah had to come from the nation of Israel. As the Seed of Judah, he had to be of the tribe of Judah. As the Seed of David, he had to be of the family of David.

The Jewish Scriptures as Background to the New Covenant

The pattern of genealogy in the Hebrew Scriptures is followed by the New Testament pattern where two genealogies are found: Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. Of the four gospel accounts, only those two deal with the birth and early life of Jesus. Both Mark and John begin their accounts with Jesus as an adult, so it is natural that only Matthew and Luke would have a genealogy. While they both provide an account of the birth and early life of Jesus, each tells the story from a different perspective.

In Matthew, Joseph plays an active role, but Miriam (Mary) plays a passive role. Matthew records angels appearing to Joseph, but there is no record of angels appearing to Miriam. Matthew records Joseph’s thoughts but nothing is recorded about Miriam’s thoughts. On the other hand, Luke’s Gospel tells the same story from Miriam’s perspective. From the context of each Gospel, it should be very evident that the genealogy of Matthew is that of Joseph, and the genealogy of Luke is that of Miriam.

The question then raised is: Why do we need two genealogies, especially since Y’shua (Jesus) was not the real son of Joseph? A popular and common answer is: Matthew’s Gospel gives the royal line, whereas Luke’s Gospel gives the real line. From this concept, another theory arises. Since seemingly Joseph was the heir apparent to David’s throne, and Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, Jesus could claim the right to David’s throne. On the other hand, Luke’s Gospel gives the real line, showing that Y’shua himself was a descendant of David. Through Miriam, he was a member of the house of David, but he could claim the right to sit on David’s throne through Joseph, the heir apparent. Actually the exact opposite is true.

Kingship

To understand the need for these two genealogies, it is important to understand the two requirements for kingship in the Hebrew Scriptures. These were developed after the division of the kingdom after the death of Solomon.…

One was applicable to the southern Kingdom of Judah, with its capital in Jerusalem, while the other was applicable to the northern Kingdom of Israel, with its capital in Samaria. The requirement for the throne of Judah was Davidic descendancy. No one was allowed to sit on David’s throne unless he was a member of the house of David. So when there was a conspiracy to do away with the house of David (Isaiah 7:5-6), God warned that any such conspiracy was doomed to failure (Isaiah 8:9-15).

The requirement for the throne of Israel was prophetic sanction or divine appointment. Anyone who attempted to rule on Samaria’s throne without prophetic sanction was assassinated (1 Kings 11:26-39; 15:28-30; 16:1-4, 11-15; 21:21-29; 11 Kings 9:6-10; 10:29-31; 14 8-12).

With the background of these two biblical requirements for kingship and what is stated in the two New Testament genealogies, the question of Jesus’ right to the throne of David can be resolved.

Matthew’s Genealogy

In his genealogy, Matthew breaks with Jewish tradition and custom. He mentions the names of four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba (who is the one to whom the pronoun “her” in verse six refers). It was contrary to Jewish practice to name women in a genealogy. The Talmud states, “A mother’s family is not to be called a family.” Even the few women Luke does mention were not the most prominent women in the genealogy of Y’shua. He could have mentioned Sarah, but did not. However, Matthew has a reason for naming these four and no others.

First, they were all Gentiles. This is obvious with Tamar, Rahab and Ruth. It was probably true of Bathsheba, since her first husband, Uriah, was a Hittite. Here Matthew hints at something he makes clear later: that while the main purpose of the coming of Jesus was to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the Gentiles would also benefit from his coming. Second, three of these women were guilty of sexual sins. Bathsheba was guilty of adultery, Rahab was guilty of prostitution and Tamar was guilty of incest. Again, Matthew only hints at a point he later clarifies: that the purpose of the Messiah’s coming was to save sinners. While this fits into the format of Old Testament genealogy, it is not Matthew’s main point.

Matthew’s genealogy also breaks with tradition in that he skips names. He traces the line of Joseph, the step-father of Jesus, by going back into history and working toward his own time. He starts tracing the line with Abraham (verse 2) and continues to David (verse 6). Out of David’s many sons, Solomon is chosen (verse 6), and the line is then traced to King Jeconiah (verse 11), one of the last kings before the Babylonian captivity. From Jeconiah (verse 12), the line is traced to Joseph (verse 16). Joseph was a direct descendant of David through Solomon, but also through Jeconiah. The “Jeconiah link” is significant in Matthew’s genealogy because of the special curse pronounced on Jeconiah in Jeremiah 22:24-30:

As I live,” declares the LORD,
“even though Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim
king of Judah were a signet ring on my right
hand, yet I would pull you off…
“Is this man Jeconiah a despised, shattered jar?
Or is he an undesirable vessel?
Why have he and his descendants been hurled out
and cast into a land that they had not known?
“O land, land, land, Hear the word of the LORD!!
“Thus says the LORD, ‘Write this man [Jeconiah] down childless,
A man who will not prosper in his days;
For no man of his descendants will prosper
Sitting on the throne of David, Or ruling again in Judah.’
No descendant of Jeconiah would have the right to the throne of David. Until Jeremiah, the first requirement for messianic lineage was to be of the house of David. With Jeremiah, it was limited still further. Now one had to be not only of the house of David, but apart from Jeconiah.

According to Matthew’s genealogy, Joseph had the blood of Jeconiah in his veins. He was not qualified to sit on David’s throne. He was not the heir apparent. This would also mean that no real son of Joseph would have the right to claim the throne of David. Therefore if Jesus were the real son of Joseph, he would have been disqualified from sitting on David’s throne. Neither could he claim the right to David’s throne by virtue of his adoption by Joseph, since Joseph was not the heir apparent.

The purpose of Matthew’s genealogy, then, is to show why Y’shua could not be king if he were really Joseph’s son. The purpose was not to show the royal line. For this reason, Matthew starts his Gospel with the genealogy, presents the Jeconiah problem, and then proceeds with the account of the virgin birth which, from Matthew’s viewpoint, is the solution to the Jeconiah problem. In summary, Matthew deduces that if Jesus were really Joseph’s son, he could not claim to sit on David’s throne because of the Jeconiah curse; but Jesus was not Joseph’s son, for he was born of the virgin Miriam (Matthew 1:18-25).

Luke’s Genealogy

Unlike Matthew, Luke follows strict Jewish procedure and custom in that he omits no names and mentions no women. However, if by Jewish custom one could not mention the name of a woman, but wished to trace her line, how would one do so? He would use the name of her husband. (Possible Old Testament precedents for this practice are Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63.) That would raise a second question: If someone studied a genealogy, how would he know whether the genealogy were that of the husband or that of the wife, since in either case the husband’s name would be used? The answer is not difficult; the problem lies with the English language.

In English it is not good grammar to use a definite article (”the”) before a proper name (”the” Matthew, “the” Luke, “the” Miriam): however, it is quite permissible in Greek grammar. In the Greek text of Luke’s genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article “the” with one exception: the name of Joseph (Luke 3:23). Someone reading the original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph’s name that this was not really Joseph’s genealogy, but his wife Miriam’s.

Furthermore, although many translations of Luke 3:23 read: “…being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli…,” because of the missing Greek definite article before the name of Joseph, that same verse could be translated as follows: “Being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph the son of Heli…”.1 In other words, the final parenthesis could be expanded so that the verse reads that although Y’shua was “supposed” or assumed to be the descendant of Joseph, he was really the descendant of Heli. Heli was the father of Miriam. The absence of Miriam’s name is quite in keeping with the Jewish practices on genealogies. The Jerusalem Talmud recognized this genealogy to be that of Miriam and not Joseph and refers to Miriam as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).

Also in contrast to Matthew, Luke begins his genealogy with his own time and goes back into history all the way to Adam. It comes to the family of David in versees 31-32. However, the son of David involved in this genealogy is not Solomon but Nathan. So, like Joseph, Miriam was a member of the house of David. But unlike Joseph, she came from David’s son, Nathan, not Solomon. Miriam was a member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. Since Jesus was Miriam’s son, he too was a member of the house of David, apart from Jeconiah.

In this way Jesus fulfilled the biblical requirement for kingship. Since Luke’s genealogy did not include Jeconiah’s line, he began his Gospel with the virgin birth, and only later, in describing Y’shua’s public ministry, recorded his genealogy.

However, Jesus was not the only member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. There were a number of other descendants who could claim equality with Y’shua to the throne of David, for they too did not have Jeconiah’s blood in their veins. Why Jesus and not one of the others? At this point the second biblical requirement for kingship, that of divine appointment, comes into the picture. Of all the members of the house of David apart from Jeconiah, only one received divine appointment. Luke 1:30-33 states:

And the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Miriam; for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall name Him Y’shua. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end.’
On what grounds then could Jesus claim the throne of David? He was a member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. He alone received divine appointment to that throne: “The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.”

While Matthew’s genealogy showed why Y’shua could not be king if he really were Joseph’s son, Luke’s genealogy shows why Y’shua could be king. When he returns, he will be king.

Two things may be noted by way of conclusion. First, many rabbinic objections to the messiahship of Jesus are based on his genealogy. The argument goes, “Since Jesus was not a descendant of David through his father, he cannot be Messiah and King.” But the Messiah was supposed to be different. As early as Genesis 3:15, it was proposed that the Messiah would be reckoned after the “seed of the woman,” although this went contrary to the biblical norm. The necessity for this exception to the rule became apparent when Isaiah 7:14 prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel.” Whereas all others receive their humanity from both father and mother, the Messiah would receive his humanity entirely from his mother. Whereas Jewish nationality and tribal identity were normally determined by the father, with the Messiah it would be different. Since he was to have no human father, his nationality and his tribal identity would come entirely from his mother. True, this is contrary to the norm, but so is a virgin birth. With the Messiah, things would be different.

In addition, these genealogies present a fourfold portrait of the messianic person through four titles. In Matthew 1:1 he is called the Son of David and the Son of Abraham. In Luke 3:38 he is called the Son of Adam and the Son of God. As the Son of David, it means that Jesus is king. As the Son of Abraham, it means that Jesus is a Jew. As the Son of Adam, it means that Jesus is a man. As the Son of God, it means that Jesus is God. This fourfold portrait of the messianic person as presented by the genealogies is that of the Jewish God-Man King. Could the Messiah be anyone less?

god bless you all and i pray this is a better understanding of god’s holy living word of truth’s.

By angel (wrote 240 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/10/2011 00:08 am

charles:
these are not assumptions because i have many jewish friends who themselves have stated this as well as the jewish center i attend to further my studies in jewish culture, traditions, and language. so please explain to me this now, are my jewish friends and the jewish center i attend wrong? as i have stated to you in 4 more years i pray i shall have my doctorate degree in biblical studies, theology, and philosophy. i am as well furthering my education by learning greek and hebrew. soon i want to add latin. I am also as stated studying many diverse cultures throughout many eras. trying to better understand their views, day to day life, their culture, their beliefs, their customs, their traditions, and mythology. so that i can grasp a better understanding of myself and all that has occurred around us up to now in biblical views and beliefs.

By angel (wrote 240 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/10/2011 00:01 am

Hi Angel

You don’t know enough about Jewish customs to make the assumptions you’re making and we don’t even know whether Mary had a brother or not. You are making all these assumptions up. And why? Simply because you need an excuse not to believe Luke 3:23.

Can you answer any of these two questions:
1. Where does the Bible tell us that Luke was doing this very strange and unusual thing of documenting Mary’s genealogy? And without even mentioning her!
2 Where does the Bible tell us that Heli was Mary’s father?

If you can’t answer these two questions, then everything you’re saying is baseless.

I am sure that if Luke 3:23 agreed with Matthew, nobody would have made up all these lies about it.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 22:00 pm

charles:
first off god bless you and i pray you have a glorious day in our lord jesus christ always.

now yes peter was a devout follower of our lord jesus christ but he denied our lord jesus christ because he saw what was being done unto his master. then why would peter follow our lord jesus christ from a distance. if you saw someone you loved and cared for being beat up, chained, treated as a criminal; would you speak up or would you be at a distance praying all would be ok and that they might just let him go so you could be there to receive him.

now also realize this. they all just got done celebrating passover and our lord jesus christ just told them he was to be betrayed by one of them and even disclosed who it would be. now explain why the other disciples didn’t understand after our lord jesus christ told them exactly who the traitor was by the dipped bread? why didn’t they stop juda? i am pretty sure they saw jesus give the dipped bread to juda. but yet the other disciples missed the sign and message just recently disclosed to them by our lord and saviour jesus christ himself. then our lord jesus christ told him do what you must. set al things into motion.

now we need to also consider throughout the disciples journey with our lord jesus christ they witnessed many who tried to kill our lord jesus christ. now knowing the fact if you speak out and against these actions which peter and the other disciples witnessed first hand. they themselves would of been in the same spot as our lord jesus christ. which proves why everyone else also ran at the garden of gethsemane. fear of persecution. this is why peter denied our lord jesus christ 3 times.

just as our lord jesus christ prophesied to peter. you shall deny me 3 times before the cock crows. fulfilled.

judas shall betray our lord just as prophesied by our lord jesus christ. fulfilled.

now charles. i do not in any way deny god’s holy living word. i also do not make excuses. and i do not run around as you perceive of me as being lost or even dumb founded in the word of god. but on the contrary; i am anchored in all the evidence as well as what is said and been ordained from god as his holy living word….. the holy bible.

you say i have shown you no proof but all that i have presented is not good enough for you. even though when one is debating the differences one must gather all matters of materials to state one’s reasonings as support and as a means of proof. so would you say then in a debate one side is more truthful only because of the evidence gathered and better presented or is it that both have put forth good research yet sadly enough each shall only be viewed as to one’s own belief to which one shall relate to the evidence provided. as i have stated before “perception perceived is one’s own pre-established reality.”

and once again luke 3:23-38 is the genealogy of our lord jesus christ. and joseph is only viewed as the son of heli by his marriage to mary. as supported by the jewish customs and traditions of marriage and the fulfillment of carrying on the family name if your in laws do not have a son to carry on the family name. and even if they have a son you are still considered a son to your in laws and are the representative for the daughter of said family. and this is according to jewish customs and traditions. therefore; that is why luke 3:23 is mentioned as so. by customs and traditions.

god bless you and have a blessed day in our lord jesus christ.

By angel (wrote 240 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 20:38 pm

Dear Angel, you know that Peter professed to be a fervent follower of Jesus, but when the truth became uncomfortable, he denied him. That’s what you’re doing to Luke. You keep trying to prove that Luke didn’t say what he said! That Luke “in no way states that joseph is the son of heli” (post 12) when in fact that is exactly what the Bible says, word for word. I give you credit for coming up with all kinds of excuses, for which you present no evidence (of course). All these excuses only confirm that, when the Bible’s words become uncomfortable for you, you just deny them.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 11:28 am

dear buddy charles:
no i believe the bible with all my heart and soul. i wish you really could see what i am stating and also the “biblical archeology society” is in fact endorsed by several well known institutes and is sponsored and supported by the “archeological institute of america.” so basically what your is you don’t like the sound of their name ” biblical archeology society.” and that they sound biased. is this correct?

also i do not mistrust the king james bible and what is stated in luke 3:23-38. the genealogy is of our lord jesus christ. and in no way states that joseph is the “son of heli.” in fact there are manuscripts that even present the same evidence according to who is the father of mary. there was a letter even discovered stating this as well. the verse clearly states saying throughout that jesus is the presumed son of joseph. then from there on it refers back unto jesus as to be continued through out the rest of the verses 24-38 until it reaches the final verse which states “which was the son of god.”

for you see according to jewish customs and traditions, when a man marries into a family with an only child. and it be a daughter; her husband takes on the responsibility “of a son” to his father-in-law. as a means to carry on the family name as well as his own family name.

and that is why joseph is mentioned as heli’s son only because he was the husband of mary. and as you said yourself “if you know anything at all about Jewish history you would know that NOBODY traced their lineage through the feminine side.” for this is why joseph was used instead of mary.

god bless and i pray all is well with everyone.

By angel (wrote 240 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 03:11 am

In post 8 Tiuche wrote: “You said the Americas, China & Africa and everywhere else was populated before the bible’s timeline for Abraham…and who is disputing that?”

Answer: you are! You can substitute Abraham for Noah in that statement of mine. In the great scheme of things the time between Noah and Abraham was insignificant (people have been around for two million years). You are saying that the world is populated by descendants of Noah and the truth is that the world was already populated long BEFORE Noah.

My proof comes from the agreement of scientists, archaeologists and historians ACROSS the entire world, Tiuche. We’re talking Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, etc… all educated people in ALL faiths KNOW that the world had been populated long before the Biblcial timeline of Abraham and Noah and Adam. I sent you an article about Jericho being populated long before Adam. That was just an example. You have a lot more educating to do.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 00:48 am

Angel, what I take from your post 9 is that you don’t believe the Bible.

But, first things first. Please forgive me for yelling. I assume you are referring to my post 5, in which I yelled three times. You wrote the entire post 9 without any yelling at all, and that shows a lot of self-restraint on your part. I will do the same.

In paragraph 4 of post 9 (starting with “what do the Dead Sea Scrolls…”) is a reminder of the multitude of changes, rewritings, and translations the books of the Bible have gone through. I hope you agree that any book loses a little bit of its authenticity every time it is changed in any way. Not all books have changed significantly in later transmissions - you are right there. But few or none are likely to be the same as the originals. We just don’t know what the originals said. The original “word of God” is simply gone.

So you believe that the Masoretic text is the closest to the original. Well, let’s say it is: it’s still changed; it’s still not the word of God.

And if the KJV is so faithful to the Masoretic text, as you stated, then why did you take issue with the KJV on the genealogy of Luke? Why didn’t you believe the KJV version if you so like it? Aren’t you always looking for excuses?

You researched the Biblical Archaeological Society. Now, I have nothing against this but, by its very name, it is prejudiced. I would have been more impressed if you checked, say, the Archaeological Institute of America or some other unbiased organization.

Continuing on, I don’t think I said the entire NT was written in Greek. What I did say was that whenever you find yourself with your back against the wall you resort to excuses. And the Greek language recently featured as one of your excuses. The Greek language was the primary language of the region when most of the NT books were written. It was well understood by most of the authors and, I assume, by all the translators of KJV (otherwise the KJV would not deserve any respect). So when you distrust a KJV translation it can’t help but strike me as an excuse.

Now about your comment about Abraham and the three sons of Noah… sorry, I meant Noah, not Abraham. Very little time passed between those two. I’m talking tens of thousands of years between the Bible and reality, so you should have gotten the message.

And, for God’s sake, Angel. the Bible does not - I am not shouting, but I hope you can finally understand this truth: the Bible does not tell us that Heli was the father of Mary. It does not, Angel. You are not telling the truth, and you know it. The Bible tells us that Heli was the father of Joseph. That’s what the Bible says, Angel. The Bible says what it says, not what you wish it would have said, Angel! You obviously don’t believe the Bible.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 00:37 am

to all:
god bless you everyone and i pray all is well today.

charles why are you yelling at me now as if i am an ignorant child. i use scriptures as well as my education in which i have 4 years left for my doctorate degree in biblical studies, theology, and philosophy. i am as well learning hebrew, latin, and greek to further my understandings in documents pertaining to biblical evidence as truths. i am as well studying cultural traditions, customs, beliefs, and mythology of several different cultures during many of the eras mentioned and in fact traced through biblical beliefs and traditions.

did you know this for instance; about the septuagint and the masoretic text as compared to the discovery of the dead sea scrolls and many of the other bibles for authenticity and accuracy. now just to let you know i am not sayings this but i do agree; so do other colleagues of mine and other scholars. even the well known “biblical archeology society” states this.

this article was published by the “biblical archeology society” stating the authenticity and accuracy of the masoretic texts.

“What do the Dead Sea Scrolls tell us about the three major textual traditions? In the majority of cases (about 60% of the biblical scroll manuscripts found), the scrolls follow the Masoretic text. About 5 percent of the biblical scrolls follow the Septuagint version; another 5 percent match the Samaritan text; 20 percent belong to a tradition unique to the Dead Sea Scrolls; and 10 percent are “nonaligned.” The key point is that the readings in the scrolls show that many variations in the biblical text are of long standing, and are not simply errors in later transmission.”

now you can find this published and documented by many well renowned professors of biblical studies, theology, philosophy, archeology, linguistics, geologist, anthropology, etc. did you notice to what was said here about the differences. they have been this way and have not been altered or changed in later interpretations. as believed by so many groups and believers. the proof was in itself the discovery of the dead sea scrolls verifying the authenticity and accuracy by 60% of all the manuscripts and scrolls as contrasted to the masoretic texts. making the masoretic texts the most reliable source to the original documentation of god’s holy living word. which is used in the king james translation.

well anyways on with god’s holy living word. for instance i simply stated what this scripture verse was saying and meant according to its contexts. also i never said that the 12 tribes populated the world that is straight foolish and ignorant. and yes the world was populated before abraham by the three sons of noah. (ham, japheth, and shem.) also they went all over the world which tiuche i am not denying at all. they were never mentioned again because god is telling us and follows his chosen children. god is showing us israel’s dramatic journey. to eventually were israel; as before; denies the truth’s of god and crucifies jesus(god in flesh) and accepts all responsibilities for their actions. as stated before pontius pilate which is stated here in matthew.

matthew 27:25
25. then answered all the people, and said, his blood be on us and on our children.

they were blinded so the gentiles could be grafted into the olive tree with israel.(parable of the olive tree) this is found in romans.

romans 11:16-17
16. for if the first fruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17. and if some of the branches be broken off and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakerst of the root and fatness of the olive tree.

now charles you said here in your posts that i am a fool for letting people deceive me. i showed you in greek what the differences were and yet you still say i am wrong when the evidence is even set before you. you said the new testament was written in greek. well this is true and false. some were also written in hebrew as well. also in latin. these were the three main ways of communication. so in order to reach many of the jews who spoke hebrew ; it was written in hebrew. for those who spoke greek; written in greek. and for those who spoke latin; written in latin. paul was a very educated man and spoke many languages as so did many other scholars, trades men, and dignitaries. the new testament was a mixed multitude like many modern cities today.

so one more time joseph is not the “son of heli” in any way. research this for yourself and show me the proof that joseph is the son of heli. luke is showing us jesus christ blood line through mary side of the family. so how could “heli” be both father to mary and joseph. that would mean joseph and mary are brother and sister. which by law and custom of the jewish people were not allowed and should of been stoned to death. so therefore joseph could not be the “son of heli.” joseph is the” son of jacob” mentioned in matthew. also doesn’t luke tell us that mary was engaged to joseph and was a virgin yet. and she shall conceive a child through the holy spirit. and that no man shall know her until after the birth of our lord jesus christ. doesn’t luke also say in verse 1:32.

luke 1:32
32. he shall be great, and shall be called the son of the highest; and the lord god shall give unto him the throne of his father david.

so was david truly the father of our lord jesus christ? for doesn’t the bible say god is the father? once again i have showed you three different references to the custom of the jews concerning family traditions and customs. yet you say i am a fool and uneducated. you state here in this post that i am making the bible say what i want it to say and that i am falsifying what the bible truly says. i would never do that ever.

as for noah’s sons populating the world read this article by a BA named tim osterholm. here is his site link below….. enjoy.

http://www.soundchristian.com/man/

god bless you all. i pray this has been enriching and fruitful unto your understanding of god’s holy living word.

By angel (wrote 240 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/8/2011 21:15 pm

Charles [Admin removed part of the name - address other Bible Commentators with their screen-name, please]: Could we who believe in the Bible believe you who we know is prejudice against it?

You said: I already explained that every educated person in the world knows that the Americas and China and Africa and everywhere else was populated LONG before the Bible’s timeline for Abraham. That is indisputable.

Answer: Vague claims! EVERY educated person knows that? You mean we Bible Believers are not educated? You said the Americas, China & Africa and everywhere else was populated before the bible’s timeline for Abraham…and who is disputing that?

On the other hand you said in post#4 you said:Just keep in mind this: Europe was populated tens of thousands of years BEFORE Abraham was born.

Answer: And where is your proof that tens of thousand years before Abraham was born, Europe was already populated? Science Books with their theories? That is your proofs?
Studying fossils of those people? How many fossils? Hundreds? Not even a hundred? Ten fossils? Not even ten fossils? Two? I doubt it if there are just even two fossils of those persons who supposedly lived ten of thousands years before Abraham! Many of those fossils have turned out to be hoaxes!

By TIUCHE (wrote 2756 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/8/2011 14:38 pm

Let me once more explain how untenable all your arguments are. Two reasons: knowledge and common sense.

Knowledge. I already explained that every educated person in the world knows that the Americas and China and Africa and everywhere else was populated LONG before the Bible’s timeline for Abraham. That is indisputable. He who hath ears, let him hear.

Common Sense. Which countries are mentioned in the OT other than Israel? Ethiopia. Egypt. Moab (Jordan)…. all countries near Israel. Why? Because those were the only countries that the authors knew about. Was Rome mentioned in the OT? No. Why? Because they didn’t know it back then. But by the time Jesus was aroud Rome had become Israel’s ruler and therefore it started getting lots of mention. You get it? The authors only knew about the countries that affected them. They had absolutely no knowledge of Panama or Bangkok or Denmark. If they did they would have mentioned them as they mentioned Ethiopia and Egypt and Rome. Just basic common sense. Hello!!! Wake up!!!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/8/2011 11:41 am

Angel Post#3 you said:a quick interpretation of this scripture. the tribe of dan decides to be their own leader instead of being one body with the other tribes of israel.
the tribe of dan is like a serpent who will strike at the power of god and cause all to fall from the tribe of dan for idolatry and from god’s grace; god then casts out the tribe of dan from second coming of our lord jesus christ. also the tribe of ephriam is cast out for the same offense of worshipping idols. the tribe of dan begs for salvation for their wicked deeds of idolatry against the one true god. but shall not receive it from god. check revelation 7:5-8. you will not see these two tribes there. did you notice that this is also a shadow of jesus and the 12 apostles. 11 believed and 1 didn’t believe and betrayed jesus (god in flesh.) just like the tribe of dan betrays god and commits idolatry while the other 11 keep to the faith.

Answer: I donot discount the possibility of that view. In the excerpt below is the confirmation (?) that Dan indeed betrays God:
(Source: http://rodney-therealtruth.blogspot.com/2009/04/part-43-dan-and-pope.html)

Part 43 Dan and the Pope
We stated how Dan’s mark is the cross, we have also mentioned that the mark of the Beast, is also the cross. In the letter below we have the Pope talking about globalization and the need to plant the cross in China

LETTER OF THE HOLY FATHER POPE BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS, PRIESTS,CONSECRATED PERSONS AND LAY FAITHFUL OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Globalization, modernity and atheism
3. As I turn my attention towards your People, which has distinguished itself among the other peoples of Asia for the splendour of its ancient civilization, with all its experience of wisdom, philosophy, art and science, I am pleased to note how, especially in recent times, it has also moved decisively towards achieving significant goals of socio-economic progress, attracting the interest of the entire world.
As my venerable predecessor Pope John Paul II once said, “The Catholic Church for her part regards with respect this impressive thrust and far-sighted planning, and with discretion offers her own contribution in the promotion and defense of the human person, and of the person’s values, spirituality and transcendent vocation. The Church has very much at heart the values and objectives which are of primary importance also to modern China: solidarity, peace, social justice, the wise management of the phenomenon of globalization”.
In this context, in which you are called to live and work, I want to remind you of what Pope John Paul II emphasized so strongly and vigorously: the new evangelization demands the proclamation of the Gospel to modern man, with a keen awareness that, just as during the first Christian millennium the Cross was planted in Europe and during the second in the American continent and in Africa, so during the third millennium a great harvest of faith will be reaped in the vast and vibrant Asian continent.

Here is the connection between the tribe of Dan and the Vatican:
“The Pilgrim Society and the Order of the Garter are the controlling inner-parts of the Catholic military order called the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (”Knights of Malta”, or “SMOM” for short). The Jesuits are ultimately in control of both the Vatican and the Military Order of Malta.”
We will continue this next time.

By TIUCHE (wrote 2756 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/8/2011 11:04 am

By the way, Angel (post 3), don’t you think your comparing of Judges and Luke is insincere? Judges: “the young man became like one of his sons to him”; Luke: “which was the son of Heli.” Can’t you even know the difference between “became LIKE A son” and “WAS THE son”? How can you let people fool you like this? Joseph “WAS THE SON OF HELI”, Angel. Not like, not if, not maybe. And not supposedly, as Jesus was to him. Luke says that Joseph “WAS THE SON OF HELI”. THE BIBLE SAYS WHAT IT SAYS NOT WHAT ANGEL WISHES IT WOULD HAVE SAID. So, please, please, PLEASE, Angel, be honest when you quote the Bible. We can’t have a meaningful discussion is the Bible says WHICH WAS THE SON OF HELI and you say he wasn’t.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/8/2011 10:01 am

Angel (post 3): Just keep in mind this: Europe was populated tens of thousands of years BEFORE Abraham was born. There are millions of history and science books that document this, explain this, prove this. You don’t have to believe this, of course. You don’t have to believe the world is round. But I’m an educated person. So, knowing this, don’t you think it would be stupid of me to believe any theories about the tribes of Israel populating the world when I know the world was already populated tens of thousands of years ago?

It’s not only stupid but it’s not even in the Bible, for God’s sake! The Bible never mentions China or the USA or Denmark… People who claim the Bible tells them all these things are lying.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/8/2011 09:51 am

to all:
god bless and i pray all is well with everyone. i pray the lord touch’s each and everyone of you as only he can.

now i know some may agree and others won’t agree with what i am about to say. that’s ok. for i pray the lord shall and will reveal the truth to all of his holy word.

now onward we go. when jacob(israel) called all his sons he had a vision of all his children and what shall become of them in the last days. for jacob was revealing god’s dealings unto them and all their descendants up to the second coming of our lord and saviour jesus christ.

for dan it was no good. basically these verses from genesis 49:16-18 states this.

Genesis 49:16-18
16 Dan shall judge his people, as one of the tribes of Israel.
17 Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.
18 I have waited for thy salvation, O LORD.

here is a quick interpretation of this scripture. the tribe of dan decides to be their own leader instead of being one body with the other tribes of israel.
the tribe of dan is like a serpent who will strike at the power of god and cause all to fall from the tribe of dan for idolatry and from god’s grace; god then casts out the tribe of dan from second coming of our lord jesus christ. also the tribe of ephriam is cast out for the same offense of worshipping idols. the tribe of dan begs for salvation for their wicked deeds of idolatry against the one true god. but shall not receive it from god. check revelation 7:5-8. you will not see these two tribes there. did you notice that this is also a shadow of jesus and the 12 apostles. 11 believed and 1 didn’t believe and betrayed jesus (god in flesh.) just like the tribe of dan betrays god and commits idolatry while the other 11 keep to the faith.

here is a little more detailed interpretation of this scripture.

what jacob(israel) is saying is that the tribe of dan shall judge and rule that the land promised unto them is not adequate enough for them by the sea coast and that it is to small for their likings. now we also need to remember that the tribe of dan had not received their inheritance as the other tribes did. remember this land was given to them by god and all its villages and cities. but they rejected it and now claim themselves as their own separate tribe from god and the rest of the tribes. they decide to do their own will. so they set out and conquered a land called leshem/laish by the sword. now even worse they took to themselves a levite who was living with micah. micah’s house was full of graven images, an ephod, and a teraphim. now also micah was paying this levite to be a priest/father. symbolizing a false doctrine. the levite was playing church and micah had created its god through the graven images. now this is were the tribe of dan messed up. they took the self proclaimed levite priest. along with the ephod, the teraphim, and also the graven image and set up an altar to worship their new god along with its newly acquired priest. in a new land that they took by force. and because of this god removed dan for idol worshipping from the promise and now the tribe of dan is seeking salvation at the second coming of our lord jesus christ.

also charles. i want you to notice in judges 17:11; what is stated here about this levite man.

judges 17:11
11 And the Levite was content to dwell with the man; and the young man was unto him as one of his sons.

now did you notice what is said here. this levite met micah, moved in with micah, and was considered/presumed as a son of micah even though micah had other sons that were of his own blood.

just like luke 3:23 about joseph and jesus. but not to joseph and heli.

By angel (wrote 240 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/8/2011 08:26 am

Post 1 is obviously written by an unbeliever poking fun at the Bible. The writer even seems to think that Genesis was written in Chinese! What a joker!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/8/2011 01:16 am

DENMARK -DAN’S MARK? (THE TRIBE OF DAN & HIS MARK)

Genesis 49:16 “Dan will provide justice for his people as one of the tribes of Israel.
Genesis 49:18 “I look for your deliverance, O LORD.

Dan is a serpent by the way, an adder by the path, a serpent trail…a serpent that leaves its trail on the way. A Wise one that leaves its mark on the path it had traveled. True enough, when the Northern House of Israel was defeated and scattered. the tribe of Dan fleeing together with the other tribes mark the way where the lost tribes of Israel traveled and settled. .During that time the Isrealites when they write, they did not put a vowel in between the consonant, so that DAN is just written as DN…and they insert the any vowels in between. Therefore DAN could be read or spoken as DAN, DEN, DIN, DON…DUN. Scan the maps of Europe…you will see the Mark of Dan throughout…
SweDEN, DUNdee, DANes River, DNeiper River, DANuber River, DUNslow and others.

Dans means North in Chinese is this a coincidence that he indeed is in the North?
Here is a excerpt from : http://rodney-therealtruth.blogspot.com/2009/04/part-42-dans-mark.html

Part 42 Dan’s Mark
In the bible it states that each of the tribes had their own standard, as stated here in Numbers.
Numbers 2:1 And Yehowah spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
2 Every man of the children of Israel shall pitch by his own standard, with the ensign of their father’s house: far off about the tabernacle of the congregation shall they pitch.
Numbers 2:25 The standard of the camp of Dan on the north side by their armies: and the captain of the children of Dan Ahiezer the son of Ammishaddai.

As we read further it states that the tribe of Dan is camped on the north side. So the tribe of Dan camped on the north side had a standard, so what is this standard? Could this be a coincidence that we have the tribe of Dan in the north? Denmark (called Danmark), is in the north. The standard of Denmark is the cross. The tribe of Dan conquered most of the northern countries, and they left their mark, “the cross.” Here are some flags that the tribe of Dan left as their mark…(see those flags visit the source).

By TIUCHE (wrote 2756 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/7/2011 14:17 pm