Is the whole Bible inspired by God?

[KingJ]

Is the bible inspired by God

Yes. God would not give us rubbish. You should rather be discussing that. Is it God's will to deceive us? Is it God's will to abandon us?

Jesus is God. Therefore the bible raising Him up, cannot be false / cannot be a book of uninspired narratives. The only facts our human minds need to grasp is Job 9:3, 2 Tim 3:16 and Rev 22:19.

Since we are talking about God of the universe...the statement ''the bible either IS or IS NOT the word of God'' is very wise. If its true, its all true. It is true.

 

[Waggles]

 

[Waggles]

 

[naomanos]

IVAN PANIN -the discoverer and author of Bible Numerics writing (1899) on Matthew 1: 1-17 the genealogy of Christ: [original Greek]
"The first 17 verses of the New Testament contain the genealogy of Christ. It consists of two main parts: verses 1-11 cover the period
from Abraham, the father of the chosen people, to the Captivity, when they ceased to be an independent people.
Verses 12-17 cover the period from the Captivity to the promised Deliverer the Christ.
Let us examine the first part of this genealogy.
Its vocabulary has 49 words, or 7 x 7. This number is itself seven (Feature 1) sevens (Feature 2),
and the sum of its factors is 2 sevens (Feature 3). [7 + 7 = 14]
Of these 49 words 28 (or 4 sevens) begin with a vowel; and 21 (or 3 sevens) begin with a consonant (Feature 4).
Again: these 49 words of the vocabulary have 266 letters, or 7 x 2 x 19; this number itself is 38 sevens (Feature 5),
and the sum of its factors is 28, [7 + 2 + 19 + 28] or 4 sevens (Feature 6), while the sum of its figures is 14, or 2 sevens (Feature 7),
moreover , 140 (or 20 sevens), are vowels, and 126 (or 18 sevens) are consonants (Feature 8)... ...
Again: of these 49 words, 35 (5 sevens) occur more than once in the passage; and 14 (2 sevens) occur but once (Feature 9);
seven occur in more than one form, and 42 (6 sevens) occur in only one form (Feature 10). And among the parts of speech the 49 words
are thus divided: 42 (or 6 sevens) are nouns, seven are not nouns (Feature 11).
Of the nouns, 35 (or 5 sevens) are proper names, seven are common nouns (Feature 12).
Of them proper names 28 (4 sevens) are male ancestors of the Christ, and seven (1 seven) are not (Feature 12)."

This is only the first several paragraphs of Ivan Panin's treatise on the first 17 verses of Matthew chapter one.
The numerics of the original Greek is mind boggling, and it is only by the analysis of Bible Numerics that we mere mortals can
begin to comprehend dimly the statement that ALL scripture is inspired by the Holy Ghost and men wrote down what they were instructed.

The Hebrews and the Greeks used letters of the alphabet for numeric values, just as the Romans did with their alphabet. Numbers as
we know them did not come to the West until the time of the Crusades via the Arabs.

"Now the vocabulary to the entire genealogy has 72 words. If we write its numeric value over each of these 72 words, and add them,
get their sum = 42,364 (or 6,052 sevens)... ... "

Yeah, no, not for me. I'll stick to English versions of the Bible.

As a matter of fact I just received the ESV Lutheran Study Bible and the ESV Apocrypha Lutheran Edition.

 

[naomanos]

I also plan on doing something a little different than I usually do. I am going to copy word-for-word and verse-for-verse the book that I am reading on the right side of notebook and my notes and prayers on the left side of the notebook.

 

[Abdicate]

IVAN PANIN -the discoverer and author of Bible Numerics writing (1899) on Matthew 1: 1-17 the genealogy of Christ: [original Greek]
"The first 17 verses of the New Testament contain the genealogy of Christ. It consists of two main parts: verses 1-11 cover the period
from Abraham, the father of the chosen people, to the Captivity, when they ceased to be an independent people.
Verses 12-17 cover the period from the Captivity to the promised Deliverer the Christ.
Let us examine the first part of this genealogy.
Its vocabulary has 49 words, or 7 x 7. This number is itself seven (Feature 1) sevens (Feature 2),
and the sum of its factors is 2 sevens (Feature 3). [7 + 7 = 14]
Of these 49 words 28 (or 4 sevens) begin with a vowel; and 21 (or 3 sevens) begin with a consonant (Feature 4).
Again: these 49 words of the vocabulary have 266 letters, or 7 x 2 x 19; this number itself is 38 sevens (Feature 5),
and the sum of its factors is 28, [7 + 2 + 19 + 28] or 4 sevens (Feature 6), while the sum of its figures is 14, or 2 sevens (Feature 7),
moreover , 140 (or 20 sevens), are vowels, and 126 (or 18 sevens) are consonants (Feature 8)... ...
Again: of these 49 words, 35 (5 sevens) occur more than once in the passage; and 14 (2 sevens) occur but once (Feature 9);
seven occur in more than one form, and 42 (6 sevens) occur in only one form (Feature 10). And among the parts of speech the 49 words
are thus divided: 42 (or 6 sevens) are nouns, seven are not nouns (Feature 11).
Of the nouns, 35 (or 5 sevens) are proper names, seven are common nouns (Feature 12).
Of them proper names 28 (4 sevens) are male ancestors of the Christ, and seven (1 seven) are not (Feature 12)."

This is only the first several paragraphs of Ivan Panin's treatise on the first 17 verses of Matthew chapter one.
The numerics of the original Greek is mind boggling, and it is only by the analysis of Bible Numerics that we mere mortals can
begin to comprehend dimly the statement that ALL scripture is inspired by the Holy Ghost and men wrote down what they were instructed.

The Hebrews and the Greeks used letters of the alphabet for numeric values, just as the Romans did with their alphabet. Numbers as
we know them did not come to the West until the time of the Crusades via the Arabs.

"Now the vocabulary to the entire genealogy has 72 words. If we write its numeric value over each of these 72 words, and add them,
get their sum = 42,364 (or 6,052 sevens)... ... "

This is true of the OT Hebrew too! Genesis 1:1 is the signature of God Almighty - mathematically! (http://www.whatabeginning.com/)

 

[calvin]

Yeah, no, not for me. I'll stick to English versions of the Bible.

As a matter of fact I just received the ESV Lutheran Study Bible and the ESV Apocrypha Lutheran Edition.

I'm sure you will enjoy the Esv.
I have a large print version...so much better than squinting through a magnifying glass
Reading the Bible in our own native language is what the Lord God would expect of us.... He knows we all have different languages, smatter of fact it was He who gave us all different languages back at Babel......it was His doing so He will work with us through our own 'God given' language, even as those languages evolve into forms their own mothers would not recognize.

Heb 1:1. Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2. but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

Listen to Jesus speaking to us in words we understand.

Joh 6:63. It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Joh 6:64. But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)
Joh 6:65. And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
Joh 6:66. After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
Joh 6:67. So Jesus said to the Twelve, "Do you want to go away as well?"
Joh 6:68. Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,
Joh 6:69. and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."

Our focus should be on Jesus and His words of eternal life, not on abstract and esoteric things.

 

[Major]

Hi Jim. Very good point. I always take that attitude when I see the contradictions in the Bible. And it helped me a lot to read the Bible without disturbance and understand God's wisdom in doing his work. But there's still one thing that I cannot figure out by any way. Here it is: "The Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament records the genealogy of Jesus. At its beginning, it says that Jesus was the son of Abraham, the son of David, and the son of Joseph. Following that, it says that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin. This means that Jesus was not the son of Joseph, the son of Abraham, or the son of David. But the record in the genealogy forcedly relates Jesus to Joseph. Following the genealogy, it begins to record the course of Jesus’ birth. And then it says that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin and was not the son of Joseph. But the genealogy clearly says that Jesus was the son of Joseph. Because the genealogy was written for Jesus, it recorded the characters of forty-two generations. When the line reaches the generation of Joseph, it immediately says that Joseph was Mary’s husband. That word was to prove that Jesus was the son of Abraham. Doesn’t this contradict the foregoing record? The genealogy clearly records the characters of Joseph’s family and is clearly Joseph’s genealogy. But Matthew asserted that it was Jesus’ genealogy. Wasn’t this denying the fact that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit? So, wasn’t the genealogy written by Matthew something of human will? It is even more something ridiculous! So you can know that this book is not completely from the Holy Spirit at all." Small errors are understandable, but how about this one?

Christina, there are no errors and no contradictions in the Bible.

 

[Major]

Hi Jim. Very good point. I always take that attitude when I see the contradictions in the Bible. And it helped me a lot to read the Bible without disturbance and understand God's wisdom in doing his work. But there's still one thing that I cannot figure out by any way. Here it is: "The Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament records the genealogy of Jesus. At its beginning, it says that Jesus was the son of Abraham, the son of David, and the son of Joseph. Following that, it says that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin. This means that Jesus was not the son of Joseph, the son of Abraham, or the son of David. But the record in the genealogy forcedly relates Jesus to Joseph. Following the genealogy, it begins to record the course of Jesus’ birth. And then it says that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin and was not the son of Joseph. But the genealogy clearly says that Jesus was the son of Joseph. Because the genealogy was written for Jesus, it recorded the characters of forty-two generations. When the line reaches the generation of Joseph, it immediately says that Joseph was Mary’s husband. That word was to prove that Jesus was the son of Abraham. Doesn’t this contradict the foregoing record? The genealogy clearly records the characters of Joseph’s family and is clearly Joseph’s genealogy. But Matthew asserted that it was Jesus’ genealogy. Wasn’t this denying the fact that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit? So, wasn’t the genealogy written by Matthew something of human will? It is even more something ridiculous! So you can know that this book is not completely from the Holy Spirit at all." Small errors are understandable, but how about this one?

In Luke’s genealogy the form is different from that of Matthew’s. Matthew’s list gives the father and who they begot (Greek gennao). In Luke the form is different, where X is the son of Y. But more precisely, the word son is absent in Greek, but only inserted into English so we can better understand it. The only place where son is used in the Greek is in verse 23 where Jesus was the supposed son of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi, and so on.

Luke is being very precise. Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph, who was of Heli. Notice that Luke never said that Joseph was the son of Heli in the Greek. This reduces the alleged contradiction to nothing and shows that Luke’s genealogy is Mary’s—with Joseph’s name listed due to inheritance laws—and Matthew’s genealogy is Joseph's.

No contradiction!

 

[calvin]

Hi Jim. Very good point. I always take that attitude when I see the contradictions in the Bible. And it helped me a lot to read the Bible without disturbance and understand God's wisdom in doing his work. But there's still one thing that I cannot figure out by any way. Here it is: "The Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament records the genealogy of Jesus. At its beginning, it says that Jesus was the son of Abraham, the son of David, and the son of Joseph. Following that, it says that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin. This means that Jesus was not the son of Joseph, the son of Abraham, or the son of David. But the record in the genealogy forcedly relates Jesus to Joseph. Following the genealogy, it begins to record the course of Jesus’ birth. And then it says that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin and was not the son of Joseph. But the genealogy clearly says that Jesus was the son of Joseph. Because the genealogy was written for Jesus, it recorded the characters of forty-two generations. When the line reaches the generation of Joseph, it immediately says that Joseph was Mary’s husband. That word was to prove that Jesus was the son of Abraham. Doesn’t this contradict the foregoing record? The genealogy clearly records the characters of Joseph’s family and is clearly Joseph’s genealogy. But Matthew asserted that it was Jesus’ genealogy. Wasn’t this denying the fact that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit? So, wasn’t the genealogy written by Matthew something of human will? It is even more something ridiculous! So you can know that this book is not completely from the Holy Spirit at all." Small errors are understandable, but how about this one?

Jesus was born into the family of Joseph and Mary. He was unique in that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, yes..but He was still of the same heritage of Joseph and Mary whose heritage is traceable back to David and to Abraham and to Adam and to God....There is no error and there is no contradiction.

 

[Christina Zhao]

How would you identify Holy Spirit inspired text vs normal text? The same argument you have posed could be extended for any scripture for that matter.. Someone can claim 1 Kings and 2 Kings to be just a historical record of Kings of Israel..

I agree that the apostles’ epistles in the Bible mostly agreed with God’s will, yet agreeing with God’s will is different from being God’s word. Peter and Paul’s epistles appeared after the Lord Jesus’ resurrection and ascension. They sent those epistles to the churches. How would the brothers and sisters in the churches of that time treat them? They might say, “These are Brother Peter’s letters. Those are Brother Paul’s letters.” They wouldn’t treat those epistles as God’s words, as the apostles had never said that they themselves were God, and they just admitted that they were disciples who followed the Lord Jesus. So, the brothers and sisters in the churches of that time would treat their epistles and their words as brothers’ words. Peter and Paul had never said that their words were inspired by God and were God’s words. This is the historical background at that time. But today we treat the apostles’ epistles and their words as God’s words, and even mention them in the same breath with God’s words. It’s contrary to the historical facts! The apostles’ epistles were only written due to their burden for the churches and were for sustaining the churches of that time. God’s words are God’s words and man’s words are man’s words. If we don’t discern in the Bible which are God’s words and which are man’s words, this is a serious problem. In fact, only a part of words in the Bible are God’s words. Only what Jehovah personally said, the words Jehovah revealed to Moses, the words Jehovah let the prophets convey, and what Jesus said personally are truly God’s words. We see that there is a special mark in all the prophets’ words. They said, “Thus said the LORD” and “Thus says the LORD.” It shows that they were conveying God’s words, letting people see clearly that they were copying God’s exact words. So, only God’s words conveyed by the prophets, and the words personally spoken by Jehovah, which were recorded, and the words personally spoken by Jesus, recorded by the apostles, are truly God’s words. In the Bible, only this part is truly God’s words. Except for this part, what the apostles said and the things recorded by God’s servants are man’s testimonies and man’s words. In the age of apostles, no one treated the epistles of the apostles Peter and Paul as God’s words or regarded apostles as Christ. They never dared to call themselves Christ. Only Christ represents God and the Holy Spirit. So, we shouldn’t treat the apostles’ words as God’s words. The apostles’ words don’t represent God, much less represent the Holy Spirit. Moreover, God has never testified the Bible like that. The Lord Jesus only acknowledged that the Bible was God’s testimony, but didn’t say that it was inspired by God and all the words in it were God’s words. Besides, the Holy Spirit had never testified the Bible to anyone like that. Only the Holy Spirit and the incarnated God are most clear about the inside truth of the Bible. No one can fathom the inside truth of the Bible. The Bible is an account of God’s work written by those who served God and is men’s experiences and testimonies. It’s only that men conveyed God’s words or after being inspired and enlightened by the Holy Spirit, men told their own experiences to testify God’s work. All these weren’t written by God personally. It’s a fact.

 

[Christina Zhao]

@Christina Zhao Hello,

I hope this does not go the wrong way here but I am going to answer you with a question in the same way it was done to me many years ago.
This is concerning the fathers of Jesus that you were taslking about.
We, that is you and I have and earthly father or dad.
We have a Heavenly Father in which we cry abba Father..
However if we walk in Faith.....then we are the children of Abraham or he is a father to us.
How can this be ? Think about it a little and see what you comeup with and let me know.

Have a wonderful Week Christina
Jim

Someone told the genealogy written by Matthew wasn’t something of God’s will. Because God could by no means have a genealogy. Matthew knew that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit but he wrote a genealogy for him, saying that he was the offspring of David and the son of Joseph. Isn’t this denying that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit? Jesus had nothing to do with Joseph. Matthew’s words are contradictory. Obviously, writing this genealogy is not from the Holy Spirit but from man’s will. A question goes in the same way: Does Jesus acknowledge that he was the offspring of Abraham? John 8:58 says,“Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was, I am.” How can we explain this?

Have a nice day Jim

 

[Brother Paul]

Someone told the genealogy written by Matthew wasn’t something of God’s will. Because God could by no means have a genealogy. Matthew knew that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit but he wrote a genealogy for him, saying that he was the offspring of David and the son of Joseph. Isn’t this denying that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit? Jesus had nothing to do with Joseph. Matthew’s words are contradictory. Obviously, writing this genealogy is not from the Holy Spirit but from man’s will. A question goes in the same way: Does Jesus acknowledge that he was the offspring of Abraham? says,“Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was, I am.” How can we explain this?

Have a nice day Jim

No it is not contradictory...since Jesus was Joseph's adopted son (which carried all the rights of a biological son) Matthew is erely showing Jesus legal right to the throne. Jesus also did have a genealogy through Mary also Davidic and Luke shows His biological right...notice that NEITHER MATT OR LUKE say Jesus is he son of Joseph

 

[Major]

Someone told the genealogy written by Matthew wasn’t something of God’s will. Because God could by no means have a genealogy. Matthew knew that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit but he wrote a genealogy for him, saying that he was the offspring of David and the son of Joseph. Isn’t this denying that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit? Jesus had nothing to do with Joseph. Matthew’s words are contradictory. Obviously, writing this genealogy is not from the Holy Spirit but from man’s will. A question goes in the same way: Does Jesus acknowledge that he was the offspring of Abraham? John 8:58 says,“Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was, I am.” How can we explain this?

Have a nice day Jim

Matthew says Jesus is the "son of David, the son of Abraham".
Didn't Matthew know that Abraham came before David????? Contradiction????
NO!!!!
Of course he did because he makes that clear in the rest of the list of people. Then why did he do it that way.

Because he is presenting the Lord Jesus as the Messiah, the King and the one to set up the kingdom of heaven on the earth, and that comes first. HE must be in the line of David to fullfil the prophecies that God made to David.

John 8:58 is simply saying that Jesus existed before Abraham and Isaac and Moses and Noah and Adam and Eve my dear friend.

It confirms Luke 24:27.......
"And beginning at Moses AND ALL the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures THE THINGS CONCERNING HIMSELF".

 

[Euphemia]

I agree that the apostles’ epistles in the Bible mostly agreed with God’s will, yet agreeing with God’s will is different from being God’s word. Peter and Paul’s epistles appeared after the Lord Jesus’ resurrection and ascension. They sent those epistles to the churches. How would the brothers and sisters in the churches of that time treat them? They might say, “These are Brother Peter’s letters. Those are Brother Paul’s letters.” They wouldn’t treat those epistles as God’s words, as the apostles had never said that they themselves were God, and they just admitted that they were disciples who followed the Lord Jesus. So, the brothers and sisters in the churches of that time would treat their epistles and their words as brothers’ words. Peter and Paul had never said that their words were inspired by God and were God’s words. This is the historical background at that time. But today we treat the apostles’ epistles and their words as God’s words, and even mention them in the same breath with God’s words. It’s contrary to the historical facts! The apostles’ epistles were only written due to their burden for the churches and were for sustaining the churches of that time. God’s words are God’s words and man’s words are man’s words. If we don’t discern in the Bible which are God’s words and which are man’s words, this is a serious problem. In fact, only a part of words in the Bible are God’s words. Only what Jehovah personally said, the words Jehovah revealed to Moses, the words Jehovah let the prophets convey, and what Jesus said personally are truly God’s words. We see that there is a special mark in all the prophets’ words. They said, “Thus said the LORD” and “Thus says the LORD.” It shows that they were conveying God’s words, letting people see clearly that they were copying God’s exact words. So, only God’s words conveyed by the prophets, and the words personally spoken by Jehovah, which were recorded, and the words personally spoken by Jesus, recorded by the apostles, are truly God’s words. In the Bible, only this part is truly God’s words. Except for this part, what the apostles said and the things recorded by God’s servants are man’s testimonies and man’s words. In the age of apostles, no one treated the epistles of the apostles Peter and Paul as God’s words or regarded apostles as Christ. They never dared to call themselves Christ. Only Christ represents God and the Holy Spirit. So, we shouldn’t treat the apostles’ words as God’s words. The apostles’ words don’t represent God, much less represent the Holy Spirit. Moreover, God has never testified the Bible like that. The Lord Jesus only acknowledged that the Bible was God’s testimony, but didn’t say that it was inspired by God and all the words in it were God’s words. Besides, the Holy Spirit had never testified the Bible to anyone like that. Only the Holy Spirit and the incarnated God are most clear about the inside truth of the Bible. No one can fathom the inside truth of the Bible. The Bible is an account of God’s work written by those who served God and is men’s experiences and testimonies. It’s only that men conveyed God’s words or after being inspired and enlightened by the Holy Spirit, men told their own experiences to testify God’s work. All these weren’t written by God personally. It’s a fact.

The entire bible, including the epistles is God's word---God ordained and God inspired.

Even Peter declared Paul's writings as SCRIPTURE. Who are WE to do less???

2 Peter 3:15-16
15 And remember, our Lord’s patience gives people time to be saved. This is what our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him— 16 speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something quite different, just as they do with other parts of Scripture. And this will result in their destruction.

 

[Waggles]

No one can fathom the inside truth of the Bible.

You obviously can not. You come across as unteachable.
You have preconceived in your mind that the Word of God in parts is not true, I think merely
to give yourself permission not to fully obey the gospel written in the New testament.
I wonder if you are a Jehovah Witness playing mind games with yourself?
If you do not want to believe the Word of God, like most, that is your free choice, but don't complain
about the consequences of such a wrong choice.

 

[calvin]

Does Jesus acknowledge that he was the offspring of Abraham? John 8:58 says,“Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was, I am.” How can we explain this?

I suppose the insurmountable problem you face is discerning when it is Jesus as the Son of God or Jesus as the son of Mary doing the speaking.
Remember this and nail it down solid....
No man, no, nor the blood of bulls can represent the Lord God.
Only a man and not the blood of bulls can represent mankind.
In Jesus we have the coming together of the two 'litigants' As the Son of God, Jesus is the perfect representative of God.... The only possible representative of the Lord God.
Speaking of Jesus,
Col 2:8. See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
Col 2:9. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
Col 2:10. and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.
And speaking of Jesus as the son of Mary, the only one who can stand as representative of mankind.
1Ti 2:5. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1Ti 2:6. who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
Now i want to stress and impress this upon you:
Eph 2:8. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
This faith being spoken of is faith in Jesus as the Christ of God, but note well that we can not have faith in just a part of Jesus.
If we have faith in Jesus, it must embrace the whole Jesus. Jesus the Son of God, Jesus the son of Mary (man).
We can not pick and choose what appeals to us and reject the rest. The whole of Jesus is what the Lord has put on offer for our salvation, and He is the one in whom our faith must reside.

 

[Waggles]

WHOSE SON IS THE CHRIST?
Matthew 22:
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?
They say unto him, The son of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? 46 And no man was able to answer him a word,
neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

 

[Waggles]

The apostles’ words don’t represent God, much less represent the Holy Spirit.

You obviously do not read any of the comments and postings added to this thread.
Your ignorance is mind numbing.

 

[Euphemia]

Someone told the genealogy written by Matthew wasn’t something of God’s will. Because God could by no means have a genealogy. Matthew knew that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit but he wrote a genealogy for him, saying that he was the offspring of David and the son of Joseph. Isn’t this denying that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit? Jesus had nothing to do with Joseph. Matthew’s words are contradictory. Obviously, writing this genealogy is not from the Holy Spirit but from man’s will. A question goes in the same way: Does Jesus acknowledge that he was the offspring of Abraham? John 8:58 says,“Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was, I am.” How can we explain this?

Have a nice day Jim

Nothing in Matthew is contradictory, but placed in the record for the purposes that God has for it.

As a Jew, Jesus the man is descended from Abraham, but as God, the great I Am, He knew Abraham, personally.

John 8:56-59
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced as he looked forward to my coming. He saw it and was glad.”

57 The people said, “You aren’t even fifty years old. How can you say you have seen Abraham?”

58 Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I am!” 59 At that point they picked up stones to throw at him. But Jesus was hidden from them and left the Temple.