Hellenic religion

[makedonin]

Here is another one:

The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David.

When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

2 Samuel 7:12,13

Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:27-32&version=NIV

Here is Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit[a] of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 1:3

Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth.

Why giving genialogy of a "father" which is acctually not his own!? To perpetuate that he has fulfilled the prophecy.

To that, Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph. They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was. Church apologists try to eliminate this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary's, even though Luke says explicitly that it is Joseph's genealogy (Luke 3:23). Christians have had problems reconciling the two genealogies since at least the early fourth century. It was then that Eusebius, a "Church Father," wrote in his "The History of the Church, "each believer has been only too eager to dilate at length on these passages."

Matthew mentions four women in the Joseph's genealogy.

a. Tamar - disguised herself as a harlot to seduce Judah, her father-in-law (Genesis 38:12-19).

b. Rahab - was a harlot who lived in the city of Jericho in Canaan (Joshua 2:1).

c. Ruth - at her mother-in-law Naomi's request, she came secretly to where Boaz was sleeping and spent the night with him. Later Ruth and Boaz were married (Ruth 3:1-14).

d. Bathsheba - became pregnant by King David while she was still married to Uriah (2 Samuel 11:2-5).

To have women mentioned in a genealogy is very unusual. That all four of the women mentioned are guilty of some sort of sexual impropriety cannot be a coincidence. Why would Matthew mention these, and only these, women? The only reason that makes any sense is that Joseph, rather than the Holy Spirit, impregnated Mary prior to their getting married, and that this was known by others who argued that because of this Jesus could not be the Messiah. By mentioning these women in the genealogy Matthew is in effect saying, "The Messiah, who must be a descendant of King David, will have at least four "loose women" in his genealogy, so what difference does one more make?"

That myth is busted. He ain't the seed of David, cause his mother has to be a virgin!

Here is why they had to put the virgin birth into the scene:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you [a] a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and [b] will call him Immanuel

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%207:14&version=NIV

Than again, Of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth. Had something as miraculous as the virgin birth actually occurred, one would expect that Mark and John would have at least mentioned it in their efforts to convince the world that Jesus was who they were claiming him to be.

The apostle Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to Jesus' birth, he says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3) and was "born of a woman," not a virgin (Galatians 4:4).

This verse is part of a prophecy that Isaiah relates to King Ahaz regarding the fate of the two kings threatening Judah at that time and the fate of Judah itself. In the original Hebrew, the verse says that a "young woman" will give birth, not a "virgin" which is an entirely different Hebrew word. Hebrew has a specific word, betulah, for a virgin, and a more general word, `almah, for a young woman. The young woman became a virgin only when the Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek.

This passage obviously has nothing to do with Jesus (who, if this prophecy did apply to him, should have been named Immanuel instead of Jesus).

To explain the Immanuel and not Jesus thing, they do another twicking on the scene, and claim that this ain't name, but a Title! They point to (Isaiah 9) where he speaks of the child of David, and he attributes him few titles like: Wonderful Counselor, [b] Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Jeremiah 23:5-6 calls him as JEHOVAH in the Original, but it is translated Our Righteousness.

So, in a book over 3000 pages, and with some time gaps between them for some hunderts till some tousand years, one surely will find the way around to twick things as they fit to them!

But the seed of David and the Virgin birth fit only in the misterious ways of their interpretation!



I wonder, I wonder, yes, I will be hated for this!

[julie]

Thanks Julie, im also enjoying the civilized chat with you, i hope that i dont offend you in any way in the future and i will respect your beliefs where they differ from mine.

Can i ask, do you personally affirm the doctrine of the trinity and do you believe Jesus is the saviour?

Not at all Atanosovski, yes Jesus is our saviour. The only ever Perfect soul on the earthly plane.
My personal interpretation of the Holy Trinity = after the experiences that I have had with those amazing out of body experiences whilst in a state of nothingness with no heartbeat - we are God, we are part of some almighty omni presence all encompassing. Our souls are sacred, divine and too be revered and loved, so that we may love all other souls in the same way. Jesus was a sacred divine soul, one that did exist,and was a soul sent for a divine purpose - to teach us to love ourselves unconditionally, without judgement, and to love each other in the same way. He was a great prophet, teacher and healer.
As for Jesus being the son of God - we are all the sons and daughters of some almighty universal force or presence. I did not see God or any other physical form. i felt the presence of many other souls. There was a state of nothingness, of peace, calm, no pain, just extreme joy and elation , and this amazing love filled me and I did not want to return. There is no other sense other than feeling and a state of knowing.
Holy Trinity - The father , God, or the almighty incredible all encompassing presnece which fills the soul
The son of Jesus - we are all the sons of the almighty
the holy spirit - every soul is holy and divine

we are praying to ourselves because God is within all of us

I tried to explain this to Vangelovski who told me science cannot explain this, but to look further to the bible, why? or to look to old scholars - why?
I did not have the ability to take notes whilst clinically dead, and how can ANYONE define my own personal experience with my creator by justifying it with a piece of paper?

ILike i said earlier, I started praying fervently and read the bible after my first experience. I did not find the answer. My second experience was some 15 years later, and was almost identical situation , bar the organ that burst inside me, and I started to look again, and read everything I possible could, and peoples experiences with out of body episodes, it was simply ,their life purpose had not yet been finished which is why they have come back
and when I started to read the philosophies of buddhism, and I need to find my stored documents on the reincarnate section on an old pc if i can boot it up, I was beside myself with joy, because that gave me what I was looking for .
Heaven is beautiful. there are no gardens, and it is a transient place for souls, the everlasting is the reincarnating of souls, so that they may learn from their suffering, to expeience joy within their next lifetime.
And we must never judge another soul, or inflict pain on them or force them or manipulate them, because that is judgement, and everything becomes karmic in life, and in the everlasting.
Because to continue to inflict pain on another soul is a form of manipulation and control, something that God did not choose Jesus for, but the exact opposite. Reincarnate souls that have had extreme suffering will basically have an easier life, as long as they have recognised and acknowledged this and not continued to make the same msitakes, that is redemption and forgiveness from the Almighty merciful one.
The ones that have not learned their lesson )and its not preaching and being judgemental to others, and having ego, which is a negative thing in the eyes of God) will go to heaven and have their souls purified , and reincarnated, however they may come back as an animal. Whereas souls that have lived with love and compassion and forgiveness, will have the kingdorm of heaven, and reincanate into a better life/

[Atanasovski]

I have so many questions, i don't really know where to begin...
I'm fascinated by your beliefs. I was an athiest before i became a seeker and eventually accepted the Christian world view. During my journey i remember reading many accounts of "Near Death Experiences" even watching them on youtube and being so fascinated by them and the implications.
I don't deny the experience you have had however your story interests me because it is very different to the ones i remember which were very "Christian" e.g. they always did time in either heaven or hell.

So you would say the experiece you had is more closely aligned with buddism and new age philosophies than it is christianity?

I see that you have a your own unique view of God and particularly Jesus. You have read the bible and you are probably familiar with his teachings about heaven and hell. How do you reconcile these teachings with your beliefs and experiences? Do you wonder why your experience contradicts this teaching? What do you do with this?

What is it we are being saved from what you speak of Jesus as the saviour? As i have understood you, we will be endlessly reincarnated. By accepting Jesus as saviour, as you have, are you only being saved from returning as an animal in your next life?

Something i will find hard to understand is how this belief deals with the reality of sin and ultimate justice.
Here is my point: If we are endlessly reincarnated, then i dont see why we couldn't live as greedy-murderous-deceitful-rapists, become a ring worm in the next life, and since animals are not moral agents i expect that you would simply be promoted to a human again in the following life. It does not make sense to say, for example, that a ring worm lived a morally bad life. So here you are as a human again, with a clean slate, you may choose to live as a devil, or behave yourself for a few cycles so that you will be promoted to a higher level, perhaps a Macedonian, and then you may choose to experience the life of a child molesting cannibal, and drop down a few levels. It seems easy to see that there is something terribly wrong with this view at its heart. In this view, there is ultimately no justice and it doesn't deal with the reality of sin in the world and the reality of suffering.

In anycase, you can respond if you wish, and if you are ok with it i'd be interested in persuing this conversation..

[julie]

Let me collect me rambled thoughts is 2.30am here now and will start writing

[julie]

Atanosovski, I will write my personal experience and belief, and I do not wish anyone to crucify me over my personal beliefs. I already know that you wont so if others don’t like what they read, move past my post please.

My first experience as a 19 year old I was overwhelmed and started to pray and obtained a St James version of the holy bible
I had always believed in God, and accepted Jesus was the greatest soul , but reading the bible left me with more questions, so I just continued on my path in life.
The second time it happened was 11 years ago, 15 years later and that is when I knew I experienced something that not many people experience. I became determined to read as much as I could about OBE out of body experiences.
I read the art of happiness by the Holy dali llama and took an interest into the peaceful philosophies of Buddhism. In my more extensive reading I came upon a detailed area in what happens when the soul leaves the body, the place it goes to for purification and cleansing before it is reborn. I felt an extreme joy when I found that this is the place I had been.
When you say more closely aligned with new age philosophises, I have not studied or read much about them, so I cant answer whether my personal experience is aligned with those. I embrace the Buddhist philosophies in life, it is not a religion that teaches fear God and go by a materialistic book to live your life. The principles are very simple , and they believe that Jesus was a great teacher , healer and prophet
To write succinctly is very difficult because to have an understanding, it would take several pages.
The heaven/hell teachings from the bible, in my personal experience, it is all open to interpretation. I do not like the indoctrination of any religion and the breeding and instilling of fear. God is not to be feared, that is a negative emotion and hurtful to the soul. I can only describe what I saw as heaven and it is nothing by the degree obtaining theologists and scholars . Fear is instilled because they are in their ego, it about control and manipulation, and money, power, greed. Most mainstream religions enforce a tithe, it’s a materialistic concept and contradicts what God is. God is also not about enforcing that you are right or wrong or judgement of other souls. The judgement will come by only the almighty presence. Those souls are very much in their ego and cannot accept or respect others for their beliefs that are not aligned with theirs, they have either been controlled and manipulated as youngsters, and actually fear that anyone else could possibly not do as they say.
Jesus lived, human beings being the corrupt unforgiving souls they are most of the time, I shall say God, I refer to this as an almighty power decided to send a soul to the earthly plane to teach loving kindness, compassion and forgiveness, to teach not to judge others. He did this because he was not pleased with the human race. He sent him with the ability to perform miracles and healing powers so that people would start loving themselves. And that he died for us , so that we may be able to save our own souls
People are not endlessly reincarnated per se, and that is another very long question to answer.
You reincarnate for a number of lifetimes before you become one with the almighty in that beautiful place where the souls are cleansed.
I don’t justify or attempt to reconcile any of my experiences or beliefs with justice/sin/ judgement
It is not up to us to judge but how we live our lives. We have free will and if it is your choice to be .
Greedy-murderous-deceitful-rapists, then that is your choice. But then there is karma, and that is another huge area. Buddhism talks a lot about attachment to material things. And looking for your happiness in others. That is not good for the soul. Your soul is god, the higher sacred divine slef within you is part of the almighty, you cannot be happy unless you are already happy within yourself. You cannot look for it in material things, you think if I buy a new car that will make me happy. For a time. Then what happens, you want a bigger, better one, and so on. That is attachment. And Jesus walked with the robes on his back, he did not have material things but found his joy in love.When you have people that are controllers, manipulators, this is ego this is hurtful to the soul, that is a sin, because you are not loving yourself as God wants you to, and as you should. Every soul has free will and the right to live on their path in life, without being inflicted with negative emotions like fear. I have largely pulled away from such preachers, they are inflicting their own beliefs, and I have that choice to protect my soul. My soul is sacred, it is God, when I pray , part of it is me, that is divine. The concept of hell and the devil – well, I guess the devil is anyone that tries to cause temptation, no soul has the right to inflict anything other than compassion, love and kindness, because karmic ally they will receive that back. Because they are actually hurting God and going against what he wants for us
What you put out to others is what you get back, if you commit crimes, then you will be harmed, by the legal justice system, or your own torment
We are not to judge others, they are here on their own paths in life and we do not have the right to choose someone else destiny. With the young, we are here to nurture them firstly, and then allow them the freedom of choice
I don’t go to church very often, but I do pray. I have an area in the house where I light a candle and say prayers. I never wish bad on anyone, I just say they will receive karma. Was it not written in the bible that they shall not pray before false gods and idols> And when Jesus and the disciples were with us, they did not go into buildings to preach
I am happy for you to ask any questions, it is such a detailed area, this was my personal experience. I did not need to obtain a degree to write what I came back with. I don’t talk about it much, I don’t like enforcing my beliefs on others when it comes to faith, they have that free will

[julie]

also With suffering, it is necessary to have that, because without suffering, you also cannot experience real joy. There is a reason for suffering, it is to teach us something about ourselves. I am going through a traumatic time last few months and I have come to make a life changing decision. I know this will ease my suffering and my health will improve.
True happiness comes from within. If you are looking for it in others it is because you have not dealt with your own demons/devils. and forgiveness is very important for the soul. One must never carry the pain of unforgiveness, you dont need to say it to those souls but let it go, and truly forgive them within your own soul so that you can heal your own soul, it is divine and worthy, otherwise, you will be in a cycle in life and find yourself always in the same situation - God sends us these , lessons/sins/whatever so that we may learn to forgive and to have compassion .

This is my favourite one I will leave you with before I go to bed, its late.
This is real it happened.
Siddhartha Buddha was on a long journey and took a young monk with him. Every day this young monk complained and was nasty to Buddha about how far they had to walk. He continued to berate him and was very nasty, yelled at him and swore. Buddha would merely glance at him and just smile and keep walking. This continued for 7 days until they reached their destination. The young monk at this stage could not stand it anymore and asked Buddha a question – he said, every day I have complained, sworn and have been rude to you and all you have done is nod your head at me for acknowledgement , smile and keep walking. Why
Buddha replied – if someone chooses to give me a gift and I choose not to accept that gift, then to whom does that gift belong?

[makedonin]

Pain determines our character! It is pain and fear that form our character and what we are as personalities. That is our daily struggle!

Everyone has his own deep pain, and his own fear inside of him! Many beliefs are there to deliver us freedom of the pain and fear! But instead it only prolongs them! We are avoiding to look into the pain, we run away from pain. And that is what prolongs and sustains pain. It is called suffering!

Cause of that pain, we look for satisfaction, and senses pleasure!

We seek satisfaction cause we want to repeat a moment of joy, where we forgot about our own misery!

But in seeking repetition of a joyful moment, we fail to forget our self but rather create another pain, another cause suffering! No moment can be repeated! Each one is unique!

It is how I see it!

[Vangelovski]

I think you have put it as it is so there is no need for further suffocation on this subject.

Vangelovski you live in a legal anti-christian system on a daily basis, your and others interpretations are full of contradictions as you tend being hardcore regilious practicant you should abandon the modern society, all of the legal obligations, all of the temptations surrounding you and to make a foundation of a totally new church according to these commandements but even in that case you will not manage to get out of your subjective interpretations of what you think God is expecting as you proved already that you don't know the fundamental things in your own religion.

Bratot,

You've failed to establish the existence of any anti-Christian law in Australia. But for arguments sake, lets say that we do. And? Why would we abandon modern society? That is the complete opposite of what the Bible teaches. Like Atanasovski said, the Bible tells us to be the light and salt of the world - to provide an example, to influence culture and work to change inappropriate civil law.

Further, why would I need a "totally new church according to these commandments" when every existing Christian church accepts these commandments and the Bible? If you think the MOC, for example, shuns the 10 commandments, you should really speak to your local priest.

What are you trying to argue?

[Bratot]

Vangelovski,

you failed in proving anything and couldn't deny those arguments and your arbitery of my arguments is not valid but the arguments itself which exist either you admit them or not, doesn't really depend on you.

I have provided and proved practically what I argued while you kept with singleminded stuborness.

Lets agree not to agree and it will be fine with me.

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski,

you failed in proving anything and couldn't deny those arguments and your arbitery of my arguments is not valid but the arguments itself which exist either you admit them or not, doesn't really depend on you.

I have provided and proved practically what I argued while you kept with singleminded stuborness.

Lets agree not to agree and it will be fine with me.

Bratot,

If anyone reading this thread can understand what it is you are in fact arguing, I'll be happy for them to explain it to me.

[Philosopher]

Makedonin just for you!

The Greek word “angelos,” usually translated as “angel,” more literally means “messenger,” since “angel” is the transliteration of “angelos.”
In the Old and New Testaments, the title “angelos,” or “messenger” is a title for both human beings and heavenly beings—“angels” as we know them.

In the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke Isaiah’s prophecy is applied to John the Baptist; John is called an “angel,” or messenger. “I send my messenger before thy face…” referring to John’s role as forerunner of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, the title “angel” is used both as an appellation of men and heavenly spirits.

We also understand in light of the Bible that heavenly spirits are sometimes called “men,” and sometimes “angels,” or “messengers.”
Genesis 18.2 states Abraham lifted up his eyes, “and lo, three men standing by him.” Then in verse 18.3 Abraham states “My Lord, if, I pray thee, I have found grace in thine eyes…”

IN Genesis 18.20 it states “and Jehovah saith, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah—because great; and their sin—because exceeding grievous; I go down now, and see whether according to its cry which is coming unto Me they have done completely—and if not—I know; and the ‘men’ turn from thence, and go towards Sodom; and Abraham is yet standing before Jehovah.

In Genesis 19.1 states “and two of the Angels (Messengers) come toward Sodom at even…”

Here we have but one example of many where heavenly beings are called “men” and “Angels.” They’re called “men” because they resemble the form of men—they take on a human form—even though they are angelic by nature.

In the Resurrection accounts, the apostles use the common scriptural idea: heavenly spirits are called both men and angels—messengers. Thus, when it states one angel in one account, one man in another account, and two men in the third account, it must be understood that they are speaking of angelic beings in the appearance and likeness of human beings. The apostles are not suggesting that they were actually human beings—but angelic beings in human form.

In regard to the issue of why Luke mentions two men, whereas Matthew and Mark one, the answer is quite simple. In Matthew’s account, the author is intending to explain who rolled the stone off the tomb, which the other two evangelists do not mention. His central message is this. Matthew does not say there was only angel—in which case this would be a contradiction. Show me where Matthew and Mark suggest that there was only man? They speak of one but they don't state that there was only one!

Mark’s gospel mentions a young man (an angel) but again does not state there was but one man. He merely explains what this young man said to the women; he is not arguing there was only one, but only records one.

Luke gives the fuller meaning, and explains that there were in fact two men (angels). The one Matthew mentions who rolled the stone off the tomb and along with another one inside the tomb and the message they uttered to the women.
When the women witnessed these events, they explained their stories to the other apostles. Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote down what they felt was the most critical, or important, to the audience they were writing to; Matthew’s account expresses the women’s account that an angel rolled off the tomb and told them Christ is risen; Mark’s account does not mention this fact. Should we assume that therefore the stone rolled off by itself? No; Mark, for whatever reason, does not state how it was rolled off; perhaps out of brevity or perhaps the audience he was writing to were already familiar with this account. Either way, Mark records some of the testimony of the women and part of that testimony is that a young man appeared to the women in white apparel. Luke’s account of the women’s testimony encompasses the fact that two men were present. Notice Luke does not record a young man in white apparel. This is unique to Mark’s account but that doesn’t mean that because Luke and Matthew failed to record this, that Mark is lying or is untrustworthy.

[Philosopher]

Makedonin,

Every one of your arguments is from Jewish apologists. Except this time, you are hiding it, whereas before you were openly quoting from them.

In regard to your ignorance about the word “almah,” and why it means “virgin,” here follows:

The best way to understand the meaning in the Bible is to understand how the context of the word used, something you obviously failed to do. Almah means “Concealment, Unmarried female, young female, Virgin.” All such are synonyms of each other, all meaning Virgin, since the unmarried female was a virgin.

Here is proof why:
The Hebrew Bible, and Almah in particular, was translated by devout Jews, scholarly Jews, hundreds of years before Christ was born, into Greek. They translated “almah” as Virgin, not because they were ignorant, but because they understood the word does not denote anything other than a Virgin. Who is the liar here: Jews and yourself, Makedonin, who argue after the fact that Almah cannot mean Virgin or the Scholarly Jews who translated it hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, as Virgin?

The word “Almah,” appears in Genesis 24. 43, Exodus 2. 8; Psalm 68.25 Proverbs 30. 19, Song of Songs 1.3; 6.8

In Genesis 24.42-43, it states “And I come to day unto the fountain and I say, Jehovah, God of my lord Abraham, if Thou art, I pray Thee, making prosperous my way in which I am going—(lo, I am standing by the foundation of water,) then the virgin (almah) who is coming out to draw, and I have said unto her, let me drink, I pray thee, a little water from thy pitcher, and she hath said unto me, Both drink thou, and also for they camels I draw—she is the woman whom Jehovah hath decided for my lord’s son.”

In this context, is the woman (Rebekah) an unmarried woman? Is she a young female maiden? Is she a virgin? Yes, in ancient times, women were to remain virgins until marriage.

IN exodus 2.8 it states “and the daughter of Pharaoh saith to her, ‘Go,;’ and the virgin (almah) goeth, and calleth the mother of the lad...” The context concerns Miriam, the sister of the infant Moses; she was a young woman, a maiden, unmarried, a Virgin.

Show me in the context of the old testament how or why Almah cannot refer to a virgin?

And the same is true with the other passages in the Old Testament.
In regard to the claim that Almah refers to the time frame of King Ahaz: the prophecy of Isaiah states, “Behold, the Lord himself shall give you a sign…” what sign or miracle is there for a woman to give birth after the natural order? Is not a “sign” something out of the natural order, something extraordinary? What makes more of a sign to you—a married woman giving birth through sex—or a virgin giving birth without the seed of a man?

The Virgin Birth is spoken of in Genesis 3.14 God says “the seed of the woman,” a very unnatural expression to give to a woman, since women, by nature, cannot have a seed; only men have a seed. This phrase is used nowhere else in the Bible; it is speaking of the Virgin Birth, the Seed of the Woman.

With respect to the context of Isaiah 7.14 and to whom it is referring to:
Some Christians argue that it is a direct prophecy of the birth of Christ; others argue that it is a “shadow,” a type, or pre-figuring event, similar to Hosea 11.1.

The reason, my ignorant friend, Jesus is called Emmanuel in Isaiah 7.14 is this: Jesus is the name of the person, Emmanuel is a title. Isaiah 7.14 states that “they shall call his name Emmanuel,” the prophecy is not about what his parents shall call him; but the people of Israel, because Emmanuel means “God is with us.” It is a description of who Jesus was—“God is with us.” His parents named him Jesus because that was his given legal name. The difference being is that Jesus was his legal first name, Emmanuel a prophecy that people would call him “God is with us.”

Matthew mentions the Virgin Birth; Luke does too. Mark doesn’t but John does.

John tells us that Christ is God made flesh—a fact that would be impossible if the birth of Christ was the union of a man and a woman.
Paul knew that Christ was born of a Virgin; for he says that Chris is the second man, from Heaven—incarnated in human form.

[Philosopher]

Here is John Calvin on the genealogy of Christ:

As all are not agreed about these two genealogies, which are given by Matthew and Luke, we must first see whether both trace the genealogy of Christ from Joseph, or whether Matthew only traces it from Joseph, and Luke from Mary. Those who are of this latter opinion have a plausible ground for their distinction in the diversity of the names: and certainly, at first sight, nothing seems more improbable than that Matthew and Luke, who differ so widely from each other, give one and the same genealogy. For from David to Salathiel, and again from Zerubbabel till Joseph, the names are totally different.

Again, it is alleged, that it would have been idle to bestow so great pains on a thing of no use, in relating a second time the genealogy of Joseph, who after all was not the father of Christ. “Why this repetition,” say they, “which proves nothing that contributes much to the edification of faith? If nothing more be known than this, that Joseph was one of the descendants and family of David, the genealogy of Christ will still remain doubtful.”

In their opinion, therefore, it would have been superfluous that two Evangelists should apply themselves to this subject. They excuse Matthew for laying down the ancestry of Joseph, on the ground, that he did it for the sake of many persons, who were still of opinion that he was the father of Christ. But it would have been foolish to hold out such an encouragement to a dangerous error: and what follows is at total variance with the supposition. For as soon as he comes to the close of the genealogy, Matthew points out that Christ was conceived in the womb of the virgin, not from the seed of Joseph, but by the secret power of the Spirit. If their argument were good, Matthew might be charged with folly or inadvertence, in laboring to no purpose to establish the genealogy of Joseph.

But we have not yet replied to their objection, that the ancestry of Joseph has nothing to do with Christ. The common and well-known reply is, that in the person of Joseph the genealogy of Mary also is included, because the law enjoined every man to marry from his own tribe. It is objected, on the other hand, that at almost no period had that law been observed: but the arguments on which that assertion rests are frivolous. They quote the instance of the eleven tribes binding themselves by an oath, that they would not give a wife to the Benjamites, (Judges 21:1.) If this matter, say they, had been settled by law, there would have been no need for a new enactment. I reply, this extraordinary occurrence is erroneously and ignorantly converted by them into a general rule: for if one tribe had been cut off, the body of the people must have been incomplete if some remedy had not been applied to a case of extreme necessity. We must not, therefore, look to this passage for ascertaining the common law.

Again, it is objected, that Mary, the mother of Christ, was Elisabeth’s cousin, though Luke has formerly stated that she was of the daughters of Aaron, (Luke 1:5.) The reply is easy. The daughters of the tribe of Judah, or of any other tribe, were at liberty to marry into the tribe of the priesthood: for they were not prevented by that reason, which is expressed in the law, that no woman should “remove her inheritance” to those who were of a different tribe from her own, (Numbers 36:6-9.) Thus, the wife of Jehoiada, the high priest, is declared by the sacred historian to have belonged to the royal family, —
“Jehoshabeath, the daughter of Jehoram,
the wife of Jehoiada the priest,”
(2 Chronicles 22:11.)

It was, therefore, nothing wonderful or uncommon, if the mother of Elisabeth were married to a priest. Should any one allege, that this does not enable us to decide, with perfect certainty, that Mary was of the same tribe with Joseph, because she was his wife, I grant that the bare narrative, as it stands, would not prove it without the aid of other circumstances.

But, in the first place, we must observe, that the Evangelists do not speak of events known in their own age. When the ancestry of Joseph had been carried up as far as David, every one could easily make out the ancestry of Mary. The Evangelists, trusting to what was generally understood in their own day, were, no doubt, less solicitous on that point: for, if any one entertained doubts, the research was neither difficult nor tedious.8585 “Il, leur estoit aise de le monstrer comme au doigt, et sans long ropos.” — “It was easy for them to point it out, as with the finger, and without a long story.” Besides, they took for granted, that Joseph, as a man of good character and behavior, had obeyed the injunction of the law in marrying a wife from his own tribe. That general rule would not, indeed, be sufficient to prove Mary’s royal descent; for she might have belonged to the tribe of Judah, and yet not have been a descendant of the family of David.

My opinion is this. The Evangelists had in their eye godly persons, who entered into no obstinate dispute, but in the person of Joseph acknowledged the descent of Mary; particularly since, as we have said, no doubt was entertained about it in that age. One matter, however, might appear incredible, that this very poor and despised couple belonged to the posterity of David, and to that royal seed, from which the Redeemer was to spring. If any one inquire whether or not the genealogy traced by Matthew and Luke proves clearly and beyond controversy that Mary was descended from the family of David, I own that it cannot be inferred with certainty; but as the relationship between Mary and Joseph was at that time well known, the Evangelists were more at ease on that subject. Meanwhile, it was the design of both Evangelists to remove the stumbling-block arising from the fact, that both Joseph and Mary were unknown, and despised, and poor, and gave not the slightest indication of royalty.

Again, the supposition that Luke passes by the descent of Joseph, and relates that of Mary, is easily refuted; for he expressly says, that Jesus was supposed to be the son of Joseph, etc. Certainly, neither the father nor the grandfather of Christ is mentioned, but the ancestry of Joseph himself is carefully explained. I am well aware of the manner in which they attempt to solve this difficulty. The word son, they allege, is put for son-in-law, and the interpretation they give to Joseph being called the son of Heli is, that he had married Heli’s daughter. But this does not agree with the order of nature, and is nowhere countenanced by any example in Scripture.

If Solomon is struck out of Mary’s genealogy, Christ will no longer be Christ; for all inquiry as to his descent is founded on that solemn promise,

“I will set up thy seed after thee; I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son,”
(2 Samuel 7:12-14.)
“The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne,”
(Psalm 132:11.)

Solomon was, beyond controversy, the type of this eternal King who was promised to David; nor can the promise be applied to Christ, except in so far as its truth was shadowed out in Solomon, (1 Chronicles 28:5.) Now if the descent is not traced to him, how, or by what argument, shall he be proved to be “the son of David”? Whoever expunges Solomon from Christ’s genealogy does at the same time, obliterate and destroy those promises by which he must be acknowledged to be the son of David. In what way Luke, tracing the line of descent from Nathan, does not exclude Solomon, will afterwards be seen at the proper place.

Not to be too tedious, those two genealogies agree substantially with each other, but we must attend to four points of difference. The first is; Luke ascends by a retrograde order, from the last to the first, while Matthew begins with the source of the genealogy. The second is; Matthew does not carry his narrative beyond the holy and elect race of Abraham,8686 “Matthieu, en sa description, ne passe point plus haut qu'Abraham, qui a este le pere du peuple sainct et esleu.” — “Matthew, in his description, does not pass higher than Abraham, who was the father of the holy and elect people.” while Luke proceeds as far as Adam. The third is; Matthew treats of his legal descent, and allows himself to make some omissions in the line of ancestors, choosing to assist the reader’s memory by arranging them under three fourteens; while Luke follows the natural descent with greater exactness. The fourth and last is; when they are speaking of the same persons, they sometimes give them different names.

It would be superfluous to say more about the first point of difference, for it presents no difficulty. The second is not without a very good reason: for, as God had chosen for himself the family of Abraham, from which the Redeemer of the world would be born, and as the promise of salvation had been, in some sort, shut up in that family till the coming of Christ, Matthew does not pass beyond the limits which God had prescribed. We must attend to what Paul says,
“that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers,”
(Romans 15:8)
with which agrees that saying of Christ, “Salvation is of the Jews,” (John 4:22.) Matthew, therefore, presents him to our contemplation as belonging to that holy race, to which he had been expressly appointed. In Matthew’s catalogue we must look at the covenant of God, by which he adopted the seed of Abraham as his people, separating them, by a “middle wall of partition,” (Ephesians 2:14,) from the rest of the nations. Luke directed his view to a higher point; for though, from the time that God had made his covenant with Abraham, a Redeemer was promised, in a peculiar manner, to his seed, yet we know that, since the transgression of the first man, all needed a Redeemer, and he was accordingly appointed for the whole world. It was by a wonderful purpose of God, that Luke exhibited Christ to us as the son of Adam, while Matthew confined him within the single family of Abraham. For it would be of no advantage to us, that Christ was given by the Father as “the author of eternal salvations” (Hebrews 5:9,) unless he had been given indiscriminately to all. Besides, that saying of the Apostle would not be true, that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever,” (Hebrews 13:8,) if his power and grace had not reached to all ages from the very creation of the world. Let us know; therefore, that to the whole human race there has been manifested and exhibited salvation through Christ; for not without reason is he called the son of Noah, and the son of Adam. But as we must seek him in the word of God, the Spirit wisely directs us, through another Evangelist, to the holy race of Abraham, to whose hands the treasure of eternal life, along with Christ, was committed for a time, (Romans 3:1.)

We come now to the third point of difference. Matthew and Luke unquestionably do not observe the same order; for immediately after David the one puts Solomon, and the other, Nathan; which makes it perfectly clear that they follow different lines. This sort of contradiction is reconciled by good and learned interpreters in the following manner. Matthew, departing from the natural lineage, which is followed by Luke, reckons up the legal genealogy. I call it the legal genealogy, because the right to the throne passed into the hands of Salathiel. Eusebius, in the first book of his Ecclesiastical History, adopting the opinion of Africanus, prefers applying the epithet legal to the genealogy which is traced by Luke. But it amounts to the same thing: for he means nothing more than this, that the kingdom, which had been established in the person of Solomon, passed in a lawful manner to Salathiel. But it is more correct and appropriate to say, that Matthew has exhibited the legal order: because, by naming Solomon immediately after David, he attends, not to the persons from whom in a regular line, according to the flesh, Christ derived his birth, but to the manner in which he was descended from Solomon and other kings, so as to be their lawful successor, in whose hand God would “stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever,” (2 Samuel 7:13.)

There is probability in the opinion that, at the death of Ahaziah, the lineal descent from Solomon was closed. As to the command given by David — for which some persons quote the authority of Jewish Commentators — that should the line from Solomon fail, the royal power would pass to the descendants of Nathan, I leave it undetermined; holding this only for certain, that the succession to the kingdom was not confused, but regulated by fixed degrees of kindred. Now, as the sacred history relates that, after the murder of Ahaziah, the throne was occupied, and all the seed-royal destroyed “by his mother Athaliah, (2 Kings 11:1,) it is more than probable that this woman, from an eager desire of power, had perpetrated those wicked and horrible murders that she might not be reduced to a private rank, and see the throne transferred to another. If there had been a son of Ahaziah still alive, the grandmother would willingly have been allowed to reign in peace, without envy or danger, under the mask of being his tutor. When she proceeds to such enormous crimes as to draw upon herself infamy and hatred, it is a proof of desperation arising from her being unable any longer to keep the royal authority in her house.

As to Joash being called “the son of Ahaziah,” (2 Chronicles 22:11,) the reason is, that he was the nearest relative, and was justly considered to be the true and direct heir of the crown. Not to mention that Athaliah (if we shall suppose her to be his grandmother) would gladly have availed herself of her relation to the child, will any person of ordinary understanding think it probable, that an actual son of the king could be so concealed by “Jehoiada the priest,” as not to excite the grandmother to more diligent search? If all is carefully weighed, there will be no hesitation in concluding, that the next heir of the crown belonged to a different line. And this is the meaning of Jehoiada’s words,
“Behold, the king’s son shall reign, as the Lord hath said of the sons of David,”
(2 Chronicles 23:3.)

He considered it to be shameful and intolerable, that a woman, who was a stranger by blood, should violently seize the scepter, which God had commanded to remain in the family of David.

There is no absurdity in supposing, that Luke traces the descent of Christ from Nathan: for it is possible that the line of Solomon, so far as relates to the succession of the throne, may have been broken off. It may be objected, that Jesus cannot be acknowledged as the promised Messiah, if he be not a descendant of Solomon, who was an undoubted type of Christ But the answer is easy. Though he was not naturally descended from Solomon, yet he was reckoned his son by legal succession, because he was descended from kings.

The fourth point of difference is the great diversity of the names. Many look upon this as a great difficulty: for from David till Joseph, with the exception of Salathiel and Zerubbabel, none of the names are alike in the two Evangelists. The excuse commonly offered, that the diversity arose from its being very customary among the Jews to have two names, appears to many persons not quite satisfactory. But as we are now unacquainted with the method, which was followed by Matthew in drawing up and arranging the genealogy, there is no reason to wonder, if we are unable to determine how far both of them agree or differ as to individual names. It cannot be doubted that, after the Babylonish captivity, the same persons are mentioned under different names. In the case of Salathiel and Zerubbabel, the same names, I think, were purposely retained, on account of the change which had taken place in the nation: because the royal authority was then extinguished. Even while a feeble shadow of power remained, a striking change was visible, which warned believers, that they ought to expect another and more excellent kingdom than that of Solomon, which had flourished but for a short time.

It is also worthy of remark, that the additional number in Luke’s catalogue to that of Matthew is nothing strange; for the number of persons in the natural line of descent is usually greater than in the legal line. Besides, Matthew chose to divide the genealogy of Christ into three departments, and to make each department to contain fourteen persons. In this way, he felt himself at liberty to pass by some names, which Luke could not with propriety omit, not having restricted himself by that rule.

Thus have I discussed the genealogy of Christ, as far as it appeared to be generally useful. If any one is tickled8787 “Si quem titillat major curiositas.” — “S'il y a quelqu'un chatouille de curiosite qui en demande d'avantage.” — “If any one is tickled by a curiosity, which asks for more of it.” by a keener curiosity, I remember Paul’s admonition, and prefer sobriety and modesty to trifling and useless disputes. It is a noted passage, in which he enjoins us to avoid excessive keenness in disputing about “genealogies, as unprofitable and vain,” (Titus 3:9.)
It now remains to inquire, lastly, why Matthew included the whole genealogy of Christ in three classes, and assigned to each class fourteen persons. Those who think that he did so, in order to aid the memory of his readers, state a part of the reason, but not the whole. It is true, indeed, that a catalogue, divided into three equal numbers, is more easily remembered. But it is also evident that this division is intended to point out a threefold condition of the nation, from the time when Christ was promised to Abraham, to “the fullness of the time” (Galatians 4:4) when he was “manifested in the flesh,” (1 Timothy 3:16.) Previous to the time of David, the tribe of Judah, though it occupied a higher rank than the other tribes, held no power. In David the royal authority burst upon the eyes of all with unexpected splendor, and remained till the time of Jeconiah. After that period, there still lingered in the tribe of Judah a portion of rank and government, which sustained the expectations of the godly till the coming of the Messiah.
1. The book of the generation Some commentators give themselves unnecessary trouble, in order to excuse Matthew for giving to his whole history this title, which applies only to the half of a single chapter. For this ἐπιγραφή, or title, does not extend to the whole book of Matthew: but the word βίβλος, book, is put for catalogue: as if he had said, “Here follows the catalogue of the generation of Christ.” It is with reference to the promise, that Christ is called the son of David, the son of Abraham: for God had promised to Abraham that he would give him a seed, “in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed,” (Genesis 12:3.) David received a still clearer promise, that God would “stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever,” (2 Samuel 7:13 that one of his posterity would be king “as long as the sun and moon endure,” (Psalm 72:5 and that “his throne should be as the days of heaven,” (Psalm 89:29.) And so it became a customary way of speaking among the Jews to call Christ the son of David

2. Jacob begat Judah and his brethren While Matthew passes by in silence Ishmael, Abraham’s first-born, and Esau, who was Jacob’s elder brother, he properly assigns a place in the genealogy to the Twelve Patriarchs, on all of whom God had bestowed a similar favor of adoption. He therefore intimates, that the blessing promised in Christ does not refer to the tribe of Judah alone, but belongs equally to all the children of Jacob, whom God gathered into his Church, while Ishmael and Esau were treated as strangers.8888 “Quum essent extranei.” — “En lieu qu'Ismael et Esau en avoyent este rejettez et bannis comme estrangers.” — “Whereas Ishmael and Esau were thrown out and banished from it as strangers.”

3. Judah begat Pharez and Zarah by Tamar This was a prelude to that emptying of himself,8989 ᾿Αλλ ᾿ ἑαυτὸν ἐχένωσε, — but he emptied himself. Such is the literal import of the words which are rendered in the English version, But made himself of no reputation. — Ed. of which Paul speaks, (Philippians 2:7). The Son of God might have kept his descent unspotted and pure from every reproach or mark of infamy. But he came into the world to
“empty himself, and take upon him the form of a servant,”
(Philippians 2:7)
to be
“a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people,”
(Psalm 22:6)
and at length to undergo the accursed death of the cross. He therefore did not refuse to admit a stain into his genealogy, arising from incestuous intercourse which took place among his ancestors. Though Tamar was not impelled by lust to seek connection with her father-in-law, yet it was in an unlawful manner that she attempted to revenge the injury which she had received. Judah again intended to commit fornication, and unknowingly to himself, met with his daughter-in-law.9090 “In nurum suam incidit.” — “Judas a commis sa meschancete avec sa bru, pensant que ce fust une autre.” — “Judah committed his wickedness with his daughter-in-law, supposing her to be a different person” But the astonishing goodness of God strove with the sin of both; so that, nevertheless, this adulterous seed came to possess the scepter.9191 “Afin que neantmoins ceste semence bastarde vint a avoir un jour en main le scepter Royal.” — “So that nevertheless this bastard seed came to have one day in its hand the Royal scepter.”
6. Begat David the King In this genealogy, the designation of King is bestowed on David alone, because in his person God exhibited a type of the future leader of his people, the Messiah. The kingly office had been formerly held by Saul; but, as he reached it through tumult and the ungodly wishes of the people, the lawful possession of the office is supposed to have commenced with David, more especially in reference to the covenant of God, who promised that “his throne should be established for ever,” (2 Samuel 7:16.) When the people shook off the yoke of God, and unhappily and wickedly asked a king, saying, “Give us a king to judge us,” (1 Samuel 8:5,) Saul was granted for short time. But his kingdom was shortly afterwards established by God, as a pledge of true prosperity, in the hand of David. Let this expression, David the King, be understood by us as pointing out the prosperous condition of the people, which the Lord had appointed.

Meanwhile, the Evangelist adds a human disgrace, which might almost bring a stain on the glory of this divine blessing. David the King begat Solomon by her that had been the wife of Uriah; by Bathsheba, whom he wickedly tore from her husband, and for the sake of enjoying whom, he basely surrendered an innocent man to be murdered by the swords of the enemy, (2 Samuel 11:15.) This taint, at the commencement of the kingdom, ought to have taught the Jews not to glory in the flesh. It was the design of God to show that, in establishing this kingdom, nothing depended on human merits.

Comparing the inspired history with the succession described by Matthew, it is evident that he has omitted three kings.9292 “Assavoir Ochozias fils de Joram, Joas, et Amazias.” — “Namely, Ahaziah son of Jehoram, Joash, and Amaziah,” (2 Chronicles 22, 23, 24, 25.) Those who say that he did so through forgetfulness, cannot be listened to for a moment. Nor is it probable that they were thrown out, because they were unworthy to occupy a place in the genealogy of Christ; for the same reason would equally apply to many others, who are indiscriminately brought forward by Matthew, along with pious and holy persons. A more correct account is, that he resolved to confine the list of each class to fourteen kings, and gave himself little concern in making the selection, because he had an adequate succession of the genealogy to place before the eyes of his readers, down to the close of the kingdom. As to there being only thirteen in the list, it probably arose from the blunders and carelessness of transcribers. Epiphanius, in his First Book against Heresies, assigns this reason, that the name of Jeconiah had been twice put down, and unlearned9393 “Indocti;” — “quelques gens n'entendans pas le propos,” — “some peope not understanding the design.” persons ventured to strike out the repetition of it as superfluous; which, he tells us, ought not to have been done, because Jehoiakim, the father of king Jehoiakim, had the name Jeconiah, in common with his son, (1 Chronicles 3:17; 2 Kings 24:15; Jeremiah 27:20; 28:4.) Robert Stephens quotes a Greek manuscript, in which the name of Jehoiakim is introduced.9494 “Robert Etienne a ce propos allegue un exemplaire Grec ancien, ou il y a ainsi, Josias engendra Joacim, et Joacim engendra Jechonias.”— “Robert Stephens, with this view, quotes an ancient Greek manuscript, which runs thus: Josiah begat Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim begat Jeconiah.”
12. After the Babylonish exile That is, after the Jews were carried into captivity: for the Evangelist means, that the descendants of David, from being kings, then became exiles and slaves. As that captivity was a sort of destruction, it came to be wonderfully arranged by Divine providence, not only that the Jews again united in one body, but even that some vestiges of dominion remained in the family of David. For those who returned home submitted, of their own accord, to the authority of Zerubbabel. In this manner, the fragments of the royal scepter9595 “Qui avoit este mis bas, et comme rompu;” — “which had been thrown down, and, as it were, broken.” lasted till the coming of Christ was at hand, agreeably to the prediction of Jacob, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come,” (Genesis 49:10.) And even during that wretched and melancholy dispersion, the nation never ceased to be illuminated by some rays of the grace of God. The Greek word μετοικεσία, which the old translator renders transmigration, and Erasmus renders exile, literally signifies a change of habitation. The meaning is, that the Jews were compelled to leave their country, and to dwell as “strangers in a land that was not theirs,” (Genesis 15:13.)
16. Jesus, who is called Christ By the surname Christ, Anointed, Matthew points out his office, to inform the readers that this was not a private person, but one divinely anointed to perform the office of Redeemer. What that anointing was, and to what it referred, I shall not now illustrate at great length. As to the word itself, it is only necessary to say that, after the royal authority was abolished, it began to be applied exclusively to Him, from whom they were taught to expect a full recovery of the lost salvation. So long as any splendor of royalty continued in the family of David, the kings were wont to be called χριστοί, anointed.9696 Every reader of the Bible is familiar with the phrase, the Lord's anointed, as applied to David and his successors, (2 Samuel 19:21; Lamentations 4:20.) — Ed. But that the fearful desolation which followed might not throw the minds of the godly into despair, it pleased God to appropriate the name of Messiah, Anointed, to the Redeemer alone: as is evident from Daniel, (9:25, 26.) The evangelical history everywhere shows that this was an ordinary way of speaking, at the time when the Son of God was “manifested in the flesh,” (1 Timothy 3:16.)

[Philosopher]

John Gill exposition of Matthew 1.23 (The Virgin Birth).

Ver. 23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child,.... These words are rightly applied to the virgin Mary and her son Jesus, for of no other can they be understood; not of Ahaz's wife and his son Hezekiah, who was already born, and must be eleven or twelve years of age when these words were spoken; nor of any other son of Ahaz by her or any other person since no other was Lord of Judea; nor of the wife of Isaiah, and any son of his, who never had any that was king of Judah. The prophecy is introduced here as in Isaiah with a "behold!" not only to raise and fix the attention, but to denote that it was something wonderful and extraordinary which was about to be related; and is therefore called
twa a "sign", wonder, or miracle; which lay not, as some Jewish writers {g} affirm, in this, that the person spoken of was unfit for conception at the time of the prophecy, since no such thing is intimated; or in this, that it should be a son and not a daughter {h}, which is foretold; for the wonder lies not in the truth of the prediction, but in the extraordinariness of the thing predicted; much less in this {i}, that the child should eat butter and honey as soon as born; since nothing is more natural and common with new born infants, than to take in any sort of liquids which are sweet and pleasant. But the sign or wonder lay in this, that a "virgin" should "conceive" or "be with child"; for the Evangelist is to be justified in rendering,
hmle by paryenov "a virgin"; by the Septuagint having so rendered it some hundreds of years before him, by the sense of the word, which comes from Mle and which signifies to "hide" or "cover"; virgins being such who are unknown to, and not uncovered by men, and in the Eastern countries were kept recluse from the company and conversation of men; and by the use of the word in all other places, Ge 24:43. The last of these texts the Jews triumph in, as making for them, and against us, but without any reason; since it does not appear that the "maid" and the "adulterous woman" are one and the same person; and if they were, the vitiated woman might be called a maid or virgin, according to her own account of herself, or in the esteem of others who knew her not, or as antecedent to her defilement; see De 22:28. Besides, could this be understood of any young woman married or unmarried, that had known a man, it would be no wonder, no surprising thing that she should "conceive" or "be with child", and "bring forth a son". It is added,

and they shall call his name Emmanuel. The difference between Isaiah and Matthew is very inconsiderable, it being in the one "thou shalt call", that is, thou virgin shalt call him by this name; and in the other "they shall call", that is, Joseph, Mary, and others; for, besides that some copies read the text in Matthew caleseiv "thou shalt call", the words both in the one and the other may be rendered impersonally, "and shall be called"; and the meaning is, not that he should be commonly known and called by such a name, any more than by any, or all of those mentioned in Isa 9:6, but only that he should be so, which is a frequent use of the word; or he should be that, and so accounted by others, which answers to the signification of this name, which the Evangelist says,

being interpreted is God with us: for it is a compound word of la "God" and wnme "with us", and well agrees with Jesus, who is God in our nature, the word that was made flesh and dwelt among us. Joh 1:14, and is the one and only Mediator between God and us, 1Ti 2:5 {k}. So the Septuagint interpret the word in Isa 8:8.

[Soldier of Macedon]

SoM,

I consider myself both a Christian and a Macedonian. I do not see a contradiction in the two. It would be like asking you if you are a Carlton or a Ford fan.........

No, not quite, Carlton and Ford have nothing to do with each other, so let's not use irrelevant parallels. I too consider myself a Macedonian and a Christian, but I consider myself a Macedonian first and foremost, hence the example with the Macedonian Muslim and the Greek Christian.

I will ask again, for the third time, and I won't bother giving more examples because you know exactly what I am talking about. It seems that nobody participating in this discussion wants to address this rather simple question. If you were put in a position where a choice had to be made, which identity takes priority, the Christian or the Macedonian?

My Macedonian identity comes first and foremost above all else. I have already given my answer. Is anybody else prepared to do the same?