Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms

THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS? WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH?

Having been a ordained Pastor for the last ten years, I have never ceased to be asked why I teach some of the things I do. The answer is simple: I have studied in detail more than most and thus have come to truths long overlooked by the vast majority of Christians today which are lulled asleep in their churches by feel-good sermons. To the Jews in the first century (and this means Yeshua as well), study was the highest form of worship, and having devoted myself to worshipping the Father in Spirit and in Truth, many of these long neglected truths have surfaced. I assure you I did not go looking to find what I did, but if I be true to G-d and my fellow-man, I must not hide what I discovered and I offer it here for you that we might all come to the unity of the faith.

BEGINNING AT THE BEGINNING..HOW TRUSTWORTHY IS THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW AS WE HAVE IT TODAY?

Because Matthew's genealogy of Yeshua actually comprises the first scriptures in the New Testament to which we are exposed in our reading of the New Testament, and since the genealogy of Matthew immediately offers us a problem, I thought it would be best if we should look first at the history of the book of Matthew itself.

Answer for yourself: Can the book of Matthew be trusted to give an accurate account of Yeshua?

We begin our search for truth by examining Christian historians and their testimony. Bishop Papias was the first to mention a book by that name. Writing about 145 C.E., he says, "And the presbyter said this. [notice he is offering hearsay as his evidence!] Mark having become the INTERPRETER OF PETER wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord, nor accompanied him . .”

Later in the same quote he says .. Matthew put the Oracles (of the Lord) in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."

Please notice that according to Papias, that Mark (whichever Mark this was!) wrote down what he remembered from hearsay and even then not in exact order. This means that Mark wrote down the oral traditions existing at the time concerning Yeshua's teachings and actions. This also means that someone must have done a considerable rewriting of his book as you will quickly come to see. Also notice he wrote down the sayings and deeds of Yeshua, which exclude the birth and death accounts as we now have them.

Answer for yourself: Now if the "sayings or deeds" of Yeshua were all that Mark wrote down, and if, as so many authorities now assert, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are based on Mark, from where did the genealogies and the birth and death narratives in the Gospels come from?

Even with these questions, keep in mind that this particular "Mark" wasn't personally present at the events and sayings he reports.

As for a man named Matthew, Papias says "he" wrote down only the oracles, or the sayings of Yeshua! However, we should remember that we have absolutely no way of knowing who wrote the book that later bore Matthew's name (meaning the book now called Matthew is not necessarily the topic of Papias' comments). This quote of Papias, is quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii, 39; ANF. i, 154-5. Also note that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, or more likely, in Aramaic which is a Hebrew dialect that was the language of Yeshua's day. He did not write the original Gospel in Greek!

Answer for yourself: If only the sayings of Yeshua were written down, and then only in Hebrew, what does this tell us?

This means that whoever wrote a book called Matthew, the book now known to Christianity and which opens the New Testament was obviously rewritten in Greek by some later person (most likely written by a Gentile or heavily edited by one), and it was at that time that the now-cherished traditions of the birth and death accounts were tacked onto the sayings of Yeshua! IN OTHER WORDS, THE FAMILIAR GOSPEL ACCOUNTS SO NEAR AND DEAR TO THE HEARTS OF BILLIONS OF CHRISTIANS WERE LATER ADDITIONS SUPPLIED BY THE PEN OF AN ANTI-SEMITIC PAGAN-GENTILE-CONVERT!

In fact, if you will research it like I have, you will find that the first New Testament, created by Marcion in 140 C.E. Here are some of the passages which are NOT found in Marcion's Gospel of Christ in his "first" New Testament:

• The birth of John the Baptist.
• The birth of Yeshua.
• The baptism of Yeshua.
• Yeshua's genealogy of Luke 3:23-38.
• The temptation narrative of Luke 4:1-13.
• Yeshua's preaching at Nazareth in Luke 4:16-30.

I realize that it is hard to accept the charge that the Gospel accounts of Yeshua's birth are spurious: I know this because I've spent years wrestling with the question and the answers forthcoming in my pursuit of truth.

Answer for yourself: Have you ever wondered “why” that in the twenty-three books from Acts to Revelation, there is not one reference to, or a word of quotation from any of the four Gospel accounts--including the words supposedly spoken by Yeshua?

Answer for yourself: Why is the first quote of a "Gospel" not found until Irenaeus in 200 A.D.? Simply because they had not been given the names of the "Apostles" yet as the authors of these oral traditions of Jesus.

It is shocking to know that in all the Pauline writings only 2 references to the teachings of Yeshua are referenced.

Answer for yourself: Have you never wondered “why” that there are not any details of Yeshua's death and resurrection in these twenty-three books?

Answer for yourself: Don't you think that if Paul, for instance, knew the very words of a man he was preaching to be G-d Himself, he would have used them extensively as references in his epistles to the Christian churches, but yet he doesn't?

Answer for yourself: What should we understand from these facts? This should tell us that Paul, and whoever wrote the non-Gospel books, knew nothing of the Gospels--which means that they had not yet been written! This is particularly significant, and may offer insight into the words of Paul when he writes this warning: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached, let him be accursed.". It was the Catholic Church father Jerome who assigned authorship of the Gospels to the person whose name the book now carries. "He assigned the Acts of the Apostles to Luke, and the Epistles of the Hebrews to Paul, noting that there was some doubt as to authorship of this epistle which today is considered anonymous." Zion Faith College, lesson no. 1, pp. 3-4.

With this warning to accept nothing but the truth we who call ourselves Christians would do well to follow such advice. Let us now look at the genealogy of Yeshua.

SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH IN THE GENEALOGIES OF YESHUA

One of the most valuable proofs that Christianity uses to teach that Yeshua was the Messiah is his descent from King David of Israel. Often Christians go to the genealogies of Yeshua in Matthew and Luke to prove their point. It should require little explaining here that the Messiah, foretold by the prophets, was to be from the House of David. Hence in the first chapter of the New Testament we find the Gospel of Matthew starting with a genealogy from Abraham to David and then to Yeshua.

Answer for yourself: But are the genealogies in Matthew and Luke trustworthy and can they be used prove such a claim?

Answer for yourself: As a typical believer are you aware that Matthew's genealogy deliberately leaves out Kings Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim, thus making void its own statement in 1:17: "So ALL the generations from Abraham to David are FOURTEEN generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are FOURTEEN generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are FOURTEEN generations"? In other words we don’t have “all” generations listed.

We can only guess at the significance of the three divisions of fourteen generations. As the number seven denotes completion in the "OT," perhaps the writer wants to show that the generations were complete from Abraham to Yeshua (two sevens in each group). Whatever the reason, let's see how he arrives at the numbers:

Not only do we not have recorded for us “all” generations as the New Testament attests, but having found one problem right from the start, we next come face to face with another: Matthew's genealogy includes the accursed King Jeconiah! Jeremiah 22:30 tells us: "Thus saith the Lord, write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." The "Old" Testament often shortened or gave an additional name for some personage. Thus Jeconiah was shortened to Coniah (Jeremiah 27:20 and Jeremiah 37:1).

One of the proofs of "Old" Testament prophecy is that indeed, no descendant of Jeconiah ever ascended the throne of Judah.

Answer for yourself: How then could Yeshua ever hope to sit on the Throne of David if he descended from Jeconiah? You may be surprised but there might be a way, but on to a more pressing problem below (ask for our article on Jeconiah and the curse).

BUT THE REAL PROBLEM IS NOT JECONIAH...IT IS JEHOIAKIM

Jeconiah isn't the only supposed ancestor of Yeshua that causes Christianity problems. We go back only one generation before Jeconiah to King Jehoiakim. In Jeremiah 36:30-31 we read: "Therefore thus says the Lord concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah: 'He shall have no one to sit on the throne of David, and his dead body shall be cast out to the heat of day and the frost of the night. I will punish him, his family and his servants for their iniquity." This prophecy was fulfilled as Jeconiah ruled barely three months before he was carried captive to Babylon and Zedikah was made king.

Answer for yourself: Now can you see why Matthew skips over the accursed Jehoiakim and omits him from his genealogy?

Answer for yourself: How could this king's descendant, supposedly being Yeshua, inherit a throne that the G-d of Israel has declared will not pass to him?

Answer for yourself: How does Paul deal with this problem with Timothy who had questions about it in the New Testament?

Paul decides to ignore the problem like 3.5 billion Christians do on this planet. These scriptural problems hidden within these genealogies help explain the words of Paul, who writes to Timothy and warns him not to allow anyone to teach contrary doctrines: "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than g-dly edifying WHICH IS IN FAITH" (I Timothy 1:4).

Answer for yourself: How does Paul deal with this problem with Titus?

The same way. In Titus 3:9 Paul again warns of "foolish questions" and "genealogies."

Some scholars have observed that Paul's warnings are evidence that spurious pedigrees of Yeshua's family were circulating already in his time, and indeed Paul's letters do seem to back this up. But we should take note that Paul's answer to this was to ignore the problem to which all Jews were aware concerning the identity of the Messiah since they are more familiar with the Old Testament than Christians. Thus, Paul admonishes Christians to just have faith! If Yeshua was born of the House of David, and this was a proof of his Messiahship, then Paul's answer in the face of spurious genealogies wouldn't have been very reassuring. Even though Christianity teaches that faith can move mountains, it can't change one's pedigree!

Answer for yourself: So how as Christianity gotten around the problem of such a curse which would limit the identity of the Messiah?

Answer for yourself: Would the creation of a second and “different” genealogy solve the problem?

Knowing full well the serious implications of this genealogy because of its omissions and limitations to Messianic identity, some Christians have tried to explain such incompatibilities by claiming that the curse of Jeconiah did not literally apply to Yeshua because Joseph was not his father (thus the need for a virgin birth you see later in our other articles on this website).

Answer for yourself: In other words, if it could be shown that Yeshua literally descended from David from another branch, as Luke supposedly has him do, and not the accursed Jeconiah, then would Yeshua now qualify?

JOSEPH OR "VIRGIN BIRTH"?

Answer for yourself: If the virgin birth was true, then why the need for not only one but two genealogies which both state that they are the pedigrees of Joseph?

Answer for yourself: Were you aware that the Codex Sinaiticus, one of the oldest New Testaments in existence, renders Matthew's account as simply: "Joseph begat Yeshua"?

Answer for yourself: Have you ever wondered why our “newer” translations don’t render the above verse the same way as Codex Sinaiticus?

That Yeshua had a human farther can be verified by John 1:45 when Philip found Nathanael and told him "We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Yeshua of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." Again, we read in John 6:42: "And they said, is not this Yeshua, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" An interesting point here is that strictly following the wording of the verse, Joseph was undoubtedly still alive at this time. It has long since been the tradition, based on another of the so-called spurious Gospel accounts, that Joseph died when Yeshua was young. Yet, if we follow the "canonical" Gospel, Yeshua is here at least 30 years of age and his father is spoken of in the present tense. Any questions regarding his birth would have been handled with without a doubt.

Answer for yourself: Having examining the evidence can we say that there is no question that the pedigrees of Yeshua are intended to convey Yeshua's legitimate descent from David through Joseph and hence his Messiahship? Most definitely.

Answer for yourself: Don’t you find it troubling that the Gospel of Mark, which remember is considered to be the oldest Gospel and the one from which both Gospels of Matthew and Luke are essentially copied, says nothing about any genealogy or any pedigree from Joseph, but only that Yeshua was the son of Mary (Mark 6:3)?

Answer for yourself: What can be understood from such a comment from the earliest Gospel that Yeshua is the “son of Mary” and is totally silent about any connection to “Joseph”?

Such a note clearly suggests that the genealogies of Matthew and Luke were later additions in order to offer a proof of Yeshua's Messiahship.

Answer for yourself: Now, as both pedigrees obviously are different when compared, then can it be said that one of them, since they differ, was a forgery-added later without the knowledge that another genealogy had already been drafted? Without a doubt?

Answer for yourself: What implication does this have to the doctrine of inerrancy and infallibility of the New Testament?

Answer for yourself: If we encounter such an error in the first chapter of the first book of the New Testament, what does that possibly say for other teachings in the New Testament which we also was though to be infallible and inerrant?

LET US EXAMINE MATTHEW AND LUKE MORE CLOSELY

The irony of the matter is that the first seventeen verses of Matthew chapter one are negated by the rest of the chapter. Let me explain. After trying to establish the physical descent of Yeshua from King David through Joseph (even if a few ancestors have to be dropped to do so), the story goes on to tell us that Mary was with child by the "Holy Ghost." If this is the case then it simply means Matthew failed to prove Yeshua was from the House of David, and therefore that he was the expected Messiah of Israel. I might comment here that it is puzzling as to why Mary would wonder about the prediction of the angel that she would conceive and bear a son considering she was betrothed to a "man named Joseph." It would actually seem quite a natural occurrence.

Obviously, I'm not the only one who thought of that problem, because the controversy has generated a standard Catholic answer.

Answer for yourself: What are the problems connected to Luke’s genealogy, often called the genealogy of Yeshua through Mary?

For centuries it has been the contention of the Catholic Church, and therefore ingrained on subsequent generations of Protestants, that the genealogy of Luke preserves the descent of Mary, thereby Yeshua's physical pedigree from King David.

Answer for yourself: Is this true? Is the genealogy of Luke which promises Messiah to come through Solomon or Nathan as Luke would have us believe?

Startling as it may sound, Luke preserves the physical descent of Yeshua through Nathan and negates the promise of G-d that the Messiah should also come through King Solomon

Answer for yourself: How can Messiah come from other than David’s lineage?

Answer for yourself: How is it that Christian Pastors and teachers, let alone their congregations miss this?

The answer is both tragic and sad. Having Pastored for over ten years, I quickly ascertained the spiritual level of the flocks to which I ministered. Without a doubt most were unqualified to discuss intelligently their faith because of a serious lack of knowledge and understanding of the Old Testament. The primary reason for such lack of knowledge which causes them to err in interpreting the New Testament or ascertaining truth from error in the New Testament is the same problem which faced the early Gentile Church after 70 C.E. and the destruction of the Temple; namely, the unfamiliarity of the Old Testament.

In I Chronicles 17:11-12, G-d tells David: "And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of they sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build me an house, and I will establish his throne for ever" (II Samuel 7:12-14, I Chronicles 22:8-10, I Kings 11:13. G-d told David this in response to his request to build a Temple).

Answer for yourself: Does the above prophecy refer to Yeshua as taught by much of Christianity, or does it refer to Solomon the son of David?

To answer those who would say that this pertains to Yeshua and not King Solomon, notice in II Samuel 7:13 that we have the same prophecy: "He [Solomon] shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men.. But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee."

Answer for yourself: One quick reason that it cannot refer to Yeshua is that along with the traditional teaching of Christianity is the teaching that Yeshua, as Messiah, did not sin (commit iniquity). Thus, the passage, according to New Testament and traditional Christian teaching makes the identity of this “seed” of David impossible for Yeshua, or at least for the current understanding of Yeshua held by most Christians.

Answer for yourself: So what is the bottom line concerning Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogy?

Aside from all the problems, the genealogy of Luke was long ago proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church to be that of Mary primarily because it was an answer for the conflicts and contradictions to the pedigree of Yeshua within Matthew: if one wasn't declared to be Mary's, then both stand to be blatant forgeries by those who know the Bible! And, because the Protestant Churches are daughters of the Mother Church of Rome, they too have followed the traditional Catholic lie.

However, the descent of any Israelite was to be considered through the father, as Israel had a patrilineal system of determining descent, meaning that no woman appears in any genealogy of the "Old" Testament. To be sure, women are mentioned in the context of chronology, but not in descent. (Moses, for example, explicitly commanded that the Israelites were to be counted "according to their father's houses"...Numbers 1:2). The second reason the Catholic Church came to light upon the genealogy of Luke to be that of Mary's-even though she isn't even mentioned within it is obviously due to the fact that Yeshua couldn't, as someone must have pointed out, be descended from the accursed King Jeconiah, as Matthew had him to do.

As if the confusion of two separate pedigrees being declared as Joseph's weren't enough, someone, unaware of the patrilineal requirement of the Hebrews and seeing the problems the pedigrees caused in regards to the "holy ghost-immaculate conception" account, added the phrases "was supposed" and "the husband of Mary" to the genealogies in order to insinuate that Yeshua wasn't Joseph's flesh and blood-well, I think by now you would agree that we've had enough of this confusion!

I BET YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT MARY WAS FROM THE TRIBE OF LEVI..AND NOT JUDAH?

Actually, if one wanted to find Mary's ancestry within the confines of the NT, a sure indication would be found in Luke 1:5: "There was in the days of Herod, . . . a certain priest named Zacharias . . . and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron and her name was Elizabeth.". Now we are informed in verse 36 of chapter one that Elizabeth was the cousin of Mary, which would mean they both had to have some common ancestry. Given the fact that G-d has promised to preserve the separate identities of the Twelve Tribes for the end-time restoration of Israel, this places Mary as a Levite by descent, which might answer the question as to why Yeshua was seemingly so well versed in Holy Scriptures as well as the sayings of Judah's rabbis. Actually, Mary and Elizabeth may have been sisters, but are here called cousins because of the Catholic tradition that the "virgin" was herself immaculately conceived, and was therefore an only child. This certainly does explain the closeness of Mary to Elizabeth. We need simply consider that the Catholic Church has explained the Gospel reference to Yeshua's brothers and sisters as actually being cousins, to understand how the story might have been "doctored" to conform to a doctrine drafted directly from the Gentile paganism.

As a study of all the material written about this issue will immediately disclose, it is useless to even attempt to present the many arguments put forward by those trying to determine the correct individual-Joseph or Mary-to which either the genealogy in Luke or Matthew belongs. And to say this again, these arguments are made by ignoring the simple fact that both pedigrees bluntly state that they belong to Joseph. However, a few individuals over the centuries have had the courage to actually challenge the subject. One was the renowned Hebrew and Greek scholar Ferrar Fenton, who, in his translation of the New Testament, removes the genealogy of Luke with these words: "I remove the Genealogy . . . for the following reason: it is quite irreconcilable with the one of Joseph given by St. Matthew, which is capable of verification from the records of the Old Testament, while this interpolated one in St. Luke's Gospel. cannot be so. It also breaks the continuity of the Text, in a manner that so accomplished a writer as that Evangelist would never have done. I am, therefore, perfectly satisfied that it is merely a note of some early editor, and never formed part of St. Luke's Gospel" (Fenton, The Holy Bible In Modern English, p. 1140).

I should also mention that there is a considerable gap in the number of generations between the two genealogies: at least 300 years worth! Luke gives forty-one generations between David and Yeshua, and Matthew twenty-seven. This is a difference of fourteen generations which represents an impossible chronology. Dr. South. Writing in Kitto's Biblical Encyclopedia, he says: "Christ's being the true Messiah depends upon his being the son of David and king of the Jews. So that unless this be evinced the whole foundation of Christianity must totter and fall".

CHANGING THE FACTS TO ALIGN WITH PRIOR PAGAN BELIEFS..WHO NOTICES...OR WHO CARES FOR THAT MATTER?

At any rate, Yeshua was known in tradition as the son of Joseph and the different genealogies were a result of trying after the fact to come up with proofs of his Messiahship by a Gentile Church which was unfamiliar with the Old Testament. Further evidence to back up this statement shall be laid out as we progress in subsequent articles. When the information is presented, it will certainly prove that the genealogies of both Matthew and Luke can be disregarded as spurious. In fact, it will be seen that Matthew was notorious for his garbled "proofs" from the "Old" Testament regarding Yeshua's Messiahship.

We shall now look closely at one of the clearest pagan corruptions to be found in the New Testament. It deals with the birth narratives, which, remember, were never a part of the earliest writings of the Christian Church. Besides the symbolism of the dove with its origins in the ancient paganism of Babylon and its Trinity, and its connection in Gentile Christianity to the Holy Spirit of G-d, we will look at the similarities with the story of Nimrod/Tammuz' divine birth by the "virgin" Mother-g-ddess Semiramis: the Mother-g-ddess who conceived the baby savior-g-d, according to the story, by the "holy spirit" of the Babylonian Trinity. Wherever this tale spread, the virgin-mother's divine birth of the "savior" became a primary focus of the Mystery Religion.

I would like to point out that when these pagan legends have been exposed to Christian readers, it has caused considerable concern. And concern it should because G-d never wanted His people to worship Him in vanity. Throughout my years of in-depth of study I have been continually confronted with many particularly disturbing similarities between the pagan Sun-g-d birth legends and the New Testament account. At times I have been reticent to mention these because not only did the information bother me, but I felt that too much of this material would cause discouragement rather than edification of the Christian faith.

Answer for yourself: So why am I telling you now? Simply, I feel time is short and the opportunity for us to repent of our errors in both belief and conduct is drawing to a close. The time to come to the knowledge of the truth is now.

One of those disturbing features I encountered while researching this material over the years was the claim that Joseph and Mary had no sexual relations until after the birth of Yeshua, which is a story told about the "earthly" parents of numerous baby Sun-g-d-saviors. One example is Apollo, whose "earthly parents" had no sexual relations until after his birth (Smith, Man and His G-ds, p. 183. See also, Walker, op. cit., p. 1050).

Even though this is a small point, I use it to illustrate how unnerving it becomes to see at every turn the story of Yeshua echoed in pagan traditions that predate him by thousands of years. Even the more tragic thing is that the church who calls themselves by his name and who testifies to be a follower of Yeshua are almost totally unenlightened to such facts we try to present. We have failed to understand what the earliest in the Gentile Church both knew and understood as evidenced by the ancient church father, Justin Martyr, who wrote in 140 C.E., "When I am told that Perseus [a Sun-g-d] was born of a virgin, I realize that here again is a case in which the serpent and deceiver has imitated our religion."

Let us now go on look into other New Testament accounts in light of history. Here, I think you must agree, my vindication for earlier denouncements will be found. More to follow in other articles in this series. Shalom

Bennoah1@verizon.net