If there were but a spark of reason or understanding in them, they would surely say to themselves: “O Lord God, something has gone wrong with us. Our misery is too great, too long, too severe; God has forgotten us!” etc. To be sure, I am not a Jew, but I really do not like to contemplate God’s awful wrath toward this people. It sends a shudder of fear through body and soul, for I ask, What will the eternal wrath of God in hell be like toward false Christians and all unbelievers? Well, let the Jews regard our Lord Jesus as they will. We behold the fulfillment of the words spoken by him in Luke 21:20: “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near … for these are days of vengeance. For great distress shall be upon the earth and wrath upon this people.

In short, as has already been said, do not engage much in debate with Jews about the articles of our faith. From their youth they have been so nurtured with venom and rancor against our Lord that there is no hope until they reach the point where their misery finally makes them pliable and they are forced to confess that the Messiah has come, and that he is our Jesus. Until such a time it is much too early, yes, it is useless to argue with them about how God is triune, how he became man, and how Mary is the mother of God. No human reason nor any human heart will ever grant these things, much less the embittered, venomous, blind heart of the Jews. As has already been said, what God cannot reform with such cruel blows, we will be unable to change with words and works. Moses was unable to reform the Pharaoh by means of plagues, miracles, pleas, or threats; he had to let him drown in the sea.

Now, in order to strengthen our faith, we want to deal with a few crass follies of the Jews in their belief and their exegesis of the Scriptures, since they so maliciously revile our faith. If this should move any Jew to reform and repent, so much the better. We are now not talking with the Jews but about the Jews and their dealings, so that our Germans, too, might be informed.

Martin Luther the Father of the Reformation who was instrumental in giving the world the scriptures, that were once only the domain of the clergy, adresses the challenge to the veracity of Jesus’s claim to be the promised messiah of the Children Israel. Many today are still blinded to this truth by religious leaders who twist the scriptures to suit their own purposes. Dispensationalists who place Gaps in the seventy weeks of Daniel should read this, and understand that when they place gaps where there are none they undermine the truth.

The Link below is to Luthers writings in Adobe Pdf Format.
Martin Luther-the Jews

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, was martyred around 180 A.D. He was a student of Polycarp, the long-lived disciple of St. John himself. Extant quotes of Irenaeus’ writings include quotes from Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, I Corinthians, I Peter, Hebrews and Titus (By the time of Irenaeus the Gospels had clearly been around a good while, and all four were well known and recognized among Christians.).

Ignatius (70-110 A.D.) quoted from Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Galatians, Colossians, James, I and II Thessalonians, I and II Timothy, and I Peter.

Barnabas quoted from the N.T. around 70 A.D., Hermas 95 A.D., and Tatian 170 A.D.

Clement of Alexandria, who lived 150-212 A.D., quoted from all but three books of the NT.

Justin Martyr, in 133 A.D., quoted from the Gospels, Acts, Revelation, and both Pauline and the other epistles. (McDowell, pp. 51-52). (History and the Bible

All the New Testament books were written before A.D. 100 (About 70 years after the death of Jesus)
”…. in letters written between A.D. 95 and 110, three early church fathers – Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp – quoted passages out of 25 of the 27 books in the New Testament.{00} Only the short books of Jude and 2 John were not referenced, but they certainly had been written.  (Jude had written his short letter by this time, because, being Jesus’ half brother, he was almost certainly dead by A.D. 100; and 2 John had been written because it came before 3 John, which was one of the 25 books quoted.)Since Clement was in Rome and Ignatius and Polycarp were hundreds of miles away in Smyrna, the original New Testament documents had to have been written significantly earlier; otherwise they could not have circulated across the ancient world by that time.  Therefore, it is safe to say that all of the New Testament was written by A.D. 100.

But that’s just the latest that they could have been written.  Most were written much earlier. How much earlier? Most, if not all, before 70.
 

Most if not all of these books were written before A.D. 70 (about 40 years after the death of Jesus)
Imagine this.  You are devout Jew in the 1st Century.  The center of your national, economic, and religious life is Jerusalem, and especially the temple.  It has been that way in your nation, your family, and almost every Jews family for a thousand years, ever since Solomon built the first temple. Most of the newest temple, constructed by King Herod, was completed when you were a child, but portions of it are still under construction and have been since 19 B.C. For your entire life you have attended services and brought sacrifices there to atone for the sins you’ve committed against God. Why? Because you and your country men consider this temple the earthly dwelling place of the God of ^{the universe, the maker of Heaven and Earth, the very Deity, whose name is so holy you dare not utter it.} 

As a young man you begin following a Jew named Jesus who claims to be the long awaited Messiah predicted in your Scriptures.  He performs miracles, teaches profound truths, and scolds and befuddles the priests in charge of the temple. Incredibly, he predicts his own death and resurrection.  He also predicts that the temple itself will be destroyed before your generation passes away (Mark 13:2, 30).

Jesus is convicted of blasphemy by your temple priests and is crucified on the eve of the Passover, one of your holiest holidays. He’s buried in a Jewish tomb, but three days later you and his other followers see Jesus alive just as he predicted.  You touch him, eat with him, and he continues to perform miracles, the last being his ascension into heaven.  Forty years later your temple is destroyed just as Jesus had predicted along with the entire city and thousands of your countrymen.

Question: If you and your fellow followers write accounts of Jesus after the temple and city were destroyed in A.D. 70, aren’t you at least going to mention that unprecedented national, human, economic, and religious tragedy somewhere in your writings, especially this risen Jesus had predicted it?  Of course!  Well, here’s the problem for those who say the New Testament was written after 70. There’s absolutely no mention of the fulfillment of this predicted tragedy anywhere in the New Testament documents.  This means most, if not all, of the documents must have been written prior to 70.

Some may object, “That’s an argument from silence, and that doesn’t prove anything.” But in fact it is not an argument from silence, for the New Testament documents speak of Jerusalem and the temple, or activities associated with them, as if they were still intact at the time of the writings.{0} But even if this were an argument from silence that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Consider these modern parallels. If a former aboard the USS Arizona wrote a book related to the history of that ship, and the book ends with no mention of the ship  being sunk and 1177 of it’s sailors being killed at Pearl Harbour, do you have any doubt that the book must have been written prior to December 7^{th 1941? Or, if a former tenant of the World Trade Center wrote a book related to the history of those buildings, and the book ends with the towers still standing, there’s absolutely no mention of the Towers being destroyed and nearly three thousand people being murdered by Muslim terrorists, do you have any doubt that the book must have been written prior to September 11th 2001? Of course not.}

Well, the disaster in A.D. 70 in terms of lives, property, and national scope, was many magnitudes greater than Pearl Harbour and 9/11. It marked the end of such terrible war that Josephus, who himself surrendered to the Romans in 67, called it the “greatest” war of all time.{1} The Jews didn’t lose just one ship or a couple of prominent buildings; they lost their entire country, their capital city, and their temple, which had been the center of their religious, political, and economic life for the last thousand years. In addition, tens of thousands of their country men were dead and hundreds of the villages burned to the ground.

So if we could expect tragedy such as Pearl Harbour to be mentioned in the relevant writings of today, we certainly should expect the events of A.D. 70 to be cited somewhere in the New Testament (especially since the events were predicted by Jesus). But since the New Testament does not mention these events anywhere and suggests that Jerusalem and the temple are still intact, we can conclude reasonably that most, if not all, of the New Testament documents must have been written prior to 70

How much earlier?
 

Many New Testament books were composed before A.D. 62 (about 30 years after the death of Jesus)  

Imagine this: You’re a first century medical doctor who was embarked on a research project to record the events of the early church. This research will require you to interview eye witnesses of the early church and to travel with the Apostle Paul as he visits new churches across the ancient world. You record prominent events in the life of the church such as the early work of John and Peter, as well as the martyrdom of Stephen and James (the brother of John). IN Paul’s life you record everything from sermons, beatings, and trials to shipwrecks and imprisonments. You also record his theological summit with Peter and James, who is Jesus’ brother and the leader of the church in Jerusalem.

As you described many of these events, your narrative is so filled with details that every informed reader will know that either you must have access to eyewitness, testimony or you are an eyewitness yourself. For e.g., as you follow Paul on his travels you shift from using the pronoun “they” to “we”, and you correctly record their names of local politicians, local slang, local weather patterns, local topography, local business practices; you even record the right depth of water about a quarter mile off Malta as your ship is about to run aground in a storm! In fact, you record at least 84 such details in the last half of your narrative.

Question: Since you obviously find it important to record all of the minor details, if your main subject, the apostle Paul, was executed at the hands of the Roman emperor Nero, do you think you would record it? Or, If Jesus’ brother, the leader of the church in Jerusalem, was killed at the hands of the Sanhedrin, the same Jewish body that sentenced Jesus to die, do you think you would record it? Of Course! And if you failed to record such momentous events, we would rightly assume that you wrote your narrative before their deaths. 

This is the situation we find in the New Testament. Luke, the medical doctor, meticulously records all kinds of details in Acts, which chronicles the early church (a listing of 84 historically confirmed details in the next chapter). Luke records the deaths of two Christian martyrs (Stephen and James the brother of John), but his account ends with two of its primary leaders (Paul, and James the brother of Jesus) still living.  Acts ends abruptly with Paul under house arrest in Rome, and there’s no mention of James having died. We know from Clement of Rome, writing in the late first century, and from other early church fathers, that Paul was executed during the reign of Neo, which ended in A.D. 68.{2} And we know from Josephus that James was killed in 62. So we can conclude, beyond reasonable doubt that the book of Acts was written before 62.

If you’re still not convinced, consider this modern parallel: suppose someone wrote a book recording the events surrounding the main figures of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. The book begins with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and includes the Civil Rights legislation of 1964, the marches and protests of Martin Luther King Jr, including his arrest and imprisonment, and his great “I have a dream” speech on the mall in Washington D.C. 

Question: If the book ends with of Martin Luther King Jr , the very leader of the movement, still alive, when would you conclude the book was written? Obviously before his assassination in April of 1968. This is the same situation we have with Luke’s narrative. His book ends with the main leaders still alive, which means it was written no later than 62. (Classical scholar and historian Colin Hemer gives thirteen additional reasons why Acts was written by 62.) {3}.

If Acts was written by 62, then the Gospel of Luke was written before that. How do we know? Because Luke reminds the original recipient of Acts, Theophilus (who was probably an important Roman official), that he had written to him earlier. The first verse of Acts says, “in my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began t do and to teach..” The ‘former book” must be the Gospel of Luke, because Luke addresses that to Theophilus as well (Luke 1:1-4, see citation below).

How much earlier is Luke? It would seem reasonable to place Luke at or before A.D. 60. Why? Because 62 is the latest Acts was written, and there had to be some time between Luke’s first writing to Theophilus and his second. If Acts is no later than 62 (and quite possibly earlier), then Luke is realistically 60 or before.

This date also makes sense in light of Paul’s quotation of Luke’s gospel. Writing sometime between A.D. 62-65. Paul quotes from Luke 10:7 and calls it ‘scripture’ (1Timothy 5:18). Therefore, Luke’s gospel must have been in circulation long enough before that time in order for both Paul and Timothy to know its contents & regard it as scripture. (By the way, this was no minor claim for Paul to make. In effect, he was making the bold assertion that Luke’s gospel was just as inspired as the Holy Jewish Bible. The Old Testament he treasured so much!)

If Luke was written by A.D. 60, then Mark must have been written in the mid-to-late 50’s if not earlier. Why question because Luke says that he got his facts by checking with eyewitness sources:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seems also good to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things that you have been taught. (Luke 1-4)

Most scholars believe Mark’s gospel was one of those eye witness sources. And if those Dead Sea Scrolls fragments we mentioned above are really from A.D. 50-70, then certainly Mark is earlier. But even if Mark isn’t before Luke, the very fact that we know beyond reasonable doubt that Luke is before 62 and probably before 60 means that we have meticulously recorded eye witness testimony written between 25 or 30 years of Jesus death, burial, and resurrection. This is far too early to be legendary. It also means that the eyewitness sources go back even earlier. How much earlier?

Some New Testament Book’s Were Penned In The 40s And 50s A.D., With Sources From The 30s (Only The A Few Years  After The Death Of Jesus)  

As certain as we are about the date of Luke’s records, there is no doubt from anyone, including the most liberal of scholars, that Paul wrote his first letter to the church at Corinth (which is in modern day Greece) sometime between 55 and 56. In this letter, Paul speaks about moral problems in the church, and then proceeds to discuss controversies about tongues, prophecies, and the Lord Supper. This, of course, demonstrates that the church in Corinth was experiencing some kind of miraculous activity and was already observing the Lord’s Supper with in 25 years of the Resurrection.

But the most significant aspect of this letter is that it contains the earliest and most authenticated testimony of the Resurrection itself. In the fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul writes down testimony he received from others and the testimony that was authenticated when Christ appeared to him:

For I delivered to you what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas (Peter), then the twelve. After that He appeared to more that five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remand until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all of the apostles; and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also (1 Cor. 15:3-8, NASB).

Where did Paul get what he ‘received’? He probably received from Peter and James when he visited them in Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Gal. 1:18). Why is this important? Because, as Gary Habermas points out, most scholars (even liberals) believe that this testimony was part of an early creed that dates right back to the Resurrection itself, eighteen months to eight years after, but some say even earlier. {4} There is no possible way that such testimony could describe a legend, because it goes right back to the time and place of the event itself. {5} If there was ever a place that a legendary Resurrection could not occur it was Jerusalem, because the Jews and the Romans were all too eager to squash Christianity and could have easily done so by parading Jesus’ body around the city.

More over, notice that Paul cites fourteen eyewitnesses whose names are known: the twelve apostles, James, and Peter himself (“Cephas” is the Aramaic for Peter), and then references an appearance to more than 500 others at one time. Included in those groups was one skeptic, James, and one outright enemy, Paul himself. By naming so many people who could verify what Paul was saying, he was, in effect, challenging his Corinthian readers to check him out. Bible scholar William Lillie puts it this way:

What gives a special authority to the list as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says, in effect: “If you don’t believe me, you can ask them.” Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within 30 years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago. {6}

If the Resurrection had not occurred, why would Paul give such a list of supposed eyewitnesses? He would have immediately lost all credibility with his Corinthian readers by lying so blatantly.

In addition to 1 Corinthians, there are numerous other New Testament documents that were written in the 50s or earlier. Galatians (A.D. 48), 1 Thessalonians (50-54), and Romans (57-58) are all in this category. In fact (and we know we may be going out on a limb here!) all of Paul’s works had to have been written before he died, which was sometime in the mid-60s.

But it’s not just conservative scholars who believe these early dates. Even some radical critics, such as atheist John A. T. Robinson, admit the New Testament documents were written early. Known for his role in launching the “Death of God” movement, Robinson wrote a revolutionary book titled Redating the New Testament, in which he posited that most New Testament books, including all four Gospels, were written sometime between A.D. 40 and 65.

The great and once-liberal archaeologist William F. Albright, after seeing how well the New Testament fit with the archaeological and historical data, wrote, “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80.” {7} Elsewhere Albright said, “In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the 40s and the 80s of the first century (very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 and 75).” {8}

So we know beyond a reasonable doubt that most if not all the New Testament documents are early. But skeptics have a couple of objections.
 

SKEPTIC’S ADVOCATE

The Documents Are Not Early Enough

Some skeptics may think that a 15- to 40-year gap between the life of Christ and the writings about him is too wide for the testimony to be reliable. But they are mistaken.

Think about events that occurred 15 to 40 years ago. When historians write about those events, we don’t say, “Oh, that’s impossible! No one can remember events from that long ago! Such skepticism is clearly unwarranted. Historians today write accurately about events in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s by consulting their own memories, those of other eyewitnesses, and any written sources from the time.

This process is the same one the New Testament writers used to record their documents. Like a good reporter, Luke interviewed eyewitnesses.{9} And as we’ll see in the next chapter, some New Testament writers were eyewitnesses themselves. They could remember 15- to 40-year-old events quite easily, just as you can. Why can you remember certain events vividly from 15 to 40 years ago and (if you’re old enough) even further back? You may be able to remember certain events because they made a great emotional impact on you. (In fact, those of us who are “over the hill” can remember some events from 30 years ago better than those from 30 minutes ago!)

Where were you and what were you doing when President Kennedy was assassinated? When the Challenger exploded? When the second plane hit the tower? Why can you remember those events so well? Because they made a deep emotional impact on you. Since an event like the Resurrection certainly would have made a deep emotional impact on the New Testament writers and the other eyewitnesses they may have consulted, it’s easy to see why the history of Jesus could be easily recalled many years later, especially in a culture with an established reliance on oral testimony (more on this below).

Furthermore, if the major works of the New Testament are eyewitness accounts written within two generations of the events, then they are not likely to be legend. Why? Because historical research indicates that a myth cannot begin to crowd out historical facts while the eyewitnesses are still alive. For this reason, Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White calls the mythological view of the New Testament “unbelievable”. {10} William Lane Craig writes, “The tests show that even two generations is too short to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical fact.” {11} Inside of those two generation, eyewitnesses are still around to correct the errors of historical revisionists.

We are seeing this tendency right now with regard to the Holocaust. In early twenty-first century, we’ve begun to see some people claim that the Holocaust never happened. Why are the revisionists trying this now? Because most of the eyewitnesses have now died. Fortunately, since we have written eyewitness testimony from the Holocaust, the revisionists are not successful in passing off their lies as the truth. The same holds true for the New Testament. If the New Testament was written within 60 years of the events it records, it is highly unlikely those events could be legendary. And as we have seen, all of the New Testament documents were written within 60 years of the events, and many much earlier.
 

Why Not Earlier?

At this point the skeptic may say, “Okay, fine. The New Testament is early, but it’s not as early as I would expect. Why didn’t they write down their testimony earlier? If I saw what they said they saw, I wouldn’t wait 15 or 20 years to write it down.” There are a number of possible reasons for the wait.

First, since the New Testament writers were living in a culture where the vast majority of people were illiterate, there was no initial need or utility in writing it down. A first-century people in Palestine, by necessity, developed strong memories in order to remember and pass on information. Craig writes,

•  
  In an oral culture like that of first-century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred traditions. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.{12} 

In such an oral culture, facts about Jesus may have been put into a memorable form. There’s good evidence for this. Gary Habermas has identified forty one short sections of the New Testament that appear to be creeds, compact sayings that could easily be remembered and that were probably passed along orally before they were put into writing (one of these creeds we’ve already mentioned. I Cor. 15: 3-8.) {13}

Second, since some of the New Testament writers may have had high hopes that Jesus was going to come backing their lifetime, they saw no immediate need to write it down. But as they aged, perhaps they thought it wise to put their observations down on Papyrus.

Third, as Christianity spread all over the ancient world, writing became the most efficient means to communicate with the rapidly expanding church. In other words, time and distance forced the New Testament writers to write it down.

On the other hand, there may not have been a gap for at least one Gospel. If those fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls are really from Mark (and they most likely are), then that Gospel might have been written in the 30s. Why? Because the fragments are of copies, not of the original. If we have copies from the 50s, then the original must have been earlier.{14}

Moreover, many scholars believe there actually were written sources that predate the Gospels. In fact, Luke, in the first four verses of his Gospel, says that he checked with other sources, though some of these may have been earlier Gospels (e.g., Matthew and Mark).{15} Was one of his sources Mark’s Gospel? We don’t know for sure. It certainly seems like Luke is speaking of several other written sources, because he says, “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us…” (Luke 1:1). Luke may have referenced Mark’s Gospel and other written testimonies including public court records from Jesus’ trial.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter whether or not there were written sources that predate the New Testament. Nor does it matter if Mark was written in the 30s A.D. Why? Because the documents we do know about are early enough and contain early source material. As we’ll see in the next chapter, many if not all of the New Testament documents were written by eyewitnesses or their contemporaries within 15 to 40 years of Jesus, and some contain oral or other written testimony that goes back to the Resurrection itself. In other words, the real issue isn’t so much the date of writings, but the date of the sources used in the writings. 

Why Not More?

Skeptics may ask, “If Jesus actually did rise from the dead, shouldn’t there be more written about Him than there is?” In response, we actually have more testimony that we might expect, and certainly more than enough to establish beyond a reasonable doubt what happened. As we have seen, Jesus is referenced by far more authors than the Roman emperor at the time (Jesus’ 43 authors to Tiberius’s 10 to 150 years of their lives). Nine of those authors were eyewitnesses or contemporaries of the events, and they wrote 27 documents, the majority of which mention or imply the Resurrection. That’s more than enough to establish historicity.

For those who still think there should have been even more written about Jesus, New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg offers four reasons why that’s not a reasonable expectation: 1) the humble beginnings of Christianity; 2) the remote location of Palestine on the eastern frontiers of the Roman Empire; 3) the small percentage of the works of ancient Graeco-Roman historian that have survived (this could be due to loss, decay, destruction, or all of the above); and 4) the lack of attention paid by surviving historical documents to Jewish figures in general.{16}

Nevertheless, some skeptics still think there should be testimony from some of the 500 people who allegedly saw the risen Christ. Skeptic Farrell Till is one of them. During a debate on the Resurrection that I (Norm) had with him in 1994, Till demanded, “Trot out one of those 500 witnesses or give us something that they wrote, and we will accept that as reliable proof or evidence.”{17}

This is an unreasonable expectation, for a number of reasons.

 First, as we have already pointed out, first-century Palestine was an oral culture. Most people were illiterate and remembered and passed on information orally.Second, how many of those predominately illiterate eyewitnesses would have written something even if they could write? Even today, with a much higher literacy rate and all the conveniences of modern writing and research tools, how many people do you know who have written a book or even an article on any subject? How many do you know who have written a book or article on a contemporary historical event, even a significant event like 9/11? Probably not many, and certainly fewer than one out of 500. (Has Farrell Till ever written an article on a major historical event he witnessed?)Third, even if some of those 500 average people did write down what they saw, why would skeptics expect their testimony to survive for 2,000 years? The New Testament survives intact because of the thousands of manuscripts copied by scribes for a growing church over the centuries. Historical works from the major ancient historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny survive in just a handful of copies, and those copies are hundreds of years from the originals. Why do the skeptics think anything is going to be written, much less survive, from an ancient group of illiterate Galilean peasants?{18}Finally, we do know the names of many of the 500, and their testimony is written down in the New Testament. They include Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, and James – plus nine who are named elsewhere as apostles (Matthew 10 and Acts 1).

So we shouldn’t expect more testimony than what we have about Jesus. And what we do have is more than enough to establish historicity.

Below is A Pdf link of  the original with the References

http___www.inplainsite.org_html_dating_the_nt

Cain wandered around after he killed Abel, but where did his wife come from ?

Can the masoretic text (Hebrew version of the old Testament) be supported from another Source ?

Establishing a chronology of the scriptures , we need to fill in the gaps occasionally.

There are books refered to in the Old testament that are not included in the divine canon.

One of these is the book of Jasher mentioned in Joshua. There are some available that appear to be pseudography,

I have come across a version that you may want to read. It appears to be a copy of the genuine text.

The Link Address Below will give you access to the Canadian library copy. Copy the link and paste it into your browser.

http://www.archive.org/details/thebookofjasherr00unknuoft

I have undertaken this work, to promote the Glory of the Lord Jesus Christ and his Covenant with those of mankind who have placed their God given faith in him.

During my many sojourns amongst various denominations there were truths I learnt and falsehoods that were being propagated as divinely inspired. It is important for one to discern truth and hold to it, and equally important to be able to recognise error and refute it. Our only safeguard in this matter is the divinely inspired cannon of the scripture. But even that alone is not enough for there are many counterfeit Christian cults who use the scripture to ensnare the ignorant. Only God by the inspiration of Holy Spirit can guide us into the truth contained in the divine scriptures. Now in order to see that we are following the correct path and are not being deluded by a counterfeit spirit, we need to confirm our steps by reading the writings of those who have gone before us, and examine the truth’s they held to.

One of the problems we encounter on the way is that men can be extremely credible, and due to our limited knowledge of the scripture, they may earn our trust and acceptance, and yet still bring us into the bondage of plausible falsehoods. This they normally do by stringing isolated bits of scripture to produce a mosaic of uncorroborated myths. The pathway out of this is Context, and always and only Context. Every passage must be examined in the light of its setting and context. To do otherwise would be to misquote Christ and place another meaning upon his words. Some portions of scripture are extremely difficult to believe, and require the abandoning of your will and some of your cherished notions. In order to build knowledge of the scripture, one must focus on Christ for he is the only foundation of our faith. Secondly we must learn to recognise what God is doing in the passages, so often we look for what we must do, or think it is ourselves that the passage refers to. I have heard acclaimed preachers make such notorious mistakes like saying someone in the scripture made the wrong decision, when re-examining their assertion you discover that had they done so we would never have received the Gospel, for Israel would have perished had Joseph decided not to tell anyone about his dreams, as they recommend to their hearers. This is because they champion human sovereignty in matters of faith, instead of God’s sovereignty in saving the elect. They Champion mans will instead of God’s will. They Champion works instead of Grace.

So now we come to the contents of this book and its purpose. Its purpose is to discount some very popular preached notions of the seventieth week of Daniel, and the covenant in its midst. I once was under the sway of these notions and some of their falsehoods I cherished and was thoroughly deluded by them. You the reader may be in the same spot on your Journey with Christ and are still holding to these erroneous views. Please read my treatise for I am not condemning you but attempting to lead you into a greater understanding of this very important subject, for at its heart is priceless Gem that will establish you and ground you in the truth that is in Christ Jesus. It will also set you free of those who seek to make merchandise of you. I spent much money on books about the end times, which I later discovered to be mere myth because the foundational structure was erroneous. This has not happened overnight and it has taken twenty years on this journey of faith and looking behind I can now see through this specific delusion. I hope this work will help you to get there quicker than I did. If you begin reading this work please finish it, for if you do not finish plowing through it you will glean no harvest from it. Should you put it aside I trust that God will one day lead you back to it when you have sufficient grasp of the scriptures to stomach it.

This book is dedicated to the Elect of God to Glorify Christ and the Covenant he laid his life down to confirm.

Yours in Christ

David Harry Hume

21st Day of January 2002.

Note this is Excerpt from  a work I undertook a few years ago, Below is the Link to the complete document in Adobe pdf format .

Jerusalem and the Messiah

1Co 13:12  For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

I must add this comment  that during following years after writing this treatise , some of  my formely held views of Eschatology changed from a futurist position to a preterist position of  fullfilment in the first century AD. Their is a video on this site by Kenneth Gentry on audience relevance and one should view this to grasp the reason why!  Use the video tag to find it.

 

Today with the advances made by modern science, early earth creationists are challenged by many, as to the validity of a six literal 24 hour day creation.

This sparks controversy amongst unbelievers and believers.

 I believe that we need to keep an open mind about this subject. Because if we don’t we may be ridiculed like those who at one time believed in a flat earth. The pictures we get today from satellites in orbit around the planet absolutely proves that the earth is not flat.

 So then when discussing the creation account, we must avoid the pitfalls of some of our predecessor’s obstinacy to accept a different view. Yet we must hold to the absolute fact that God created everything we see in the universe. Truth is relative to our understanding of it, so what seems true to one may be fiction to another.

 As the scripture as I understand it is figuratively much like a jigsaw puzzle, in that a composite picture emerges as our knowledge of it grows. Some things are hidden others emerge over time.

 Genesis 1: 14/19 ¶  And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: {the day…: Heb. between the day and between the night}   And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.   And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. {to rule the day…: Heb. for the rule of the day, etc.}   And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,   And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.   And the evening and the morning were the fourth day

 The measurement of time frames is contained in the verse above. When we read this verse in account of the creation, we discover that the universe itself is the key that will help us understand the timeframes of the creation account. It is notable that this only occurs on the fourth day, which means that before this there was no visible measurement of day and night. Which are stated as the evening and the morning that delineated the days in the previous verses? The use of the words evening and morning denote periods of invisibility and visibility to us who use our human senses when seeing things. The day here comprises of these two components of invisibility and visibility.  Without the Sun and the moon to give light in the previous verses, we cannot measure them according to the periods of sun setting and sunrise

 Of course these are determined by who is observing the events; it is certainly not humanity for it is the trinity in action.  So we have to place ourselves in the throne room and see these things through the eyes of the creator, who has neither beginning of days nor end of days.

 The other factor is where one would place the throne room; it could be placed outside creation beyond the boundaries of the visible creation, the universe and every thing within it or at the invisible, the very center of the creation.

 The scripture supports the latter in many instances. Salvation itself is an inward change, in that it does not change our outward appearance, it changes the very heart of the man. The Earthly Jerusalem was in the center of Israel, and also in the heart of the tabernacle God dwelt, while the Israelites were arranged in their tribal divisions around the the tabernacle with the three divisions of Levites in the center. Metaphorically they were as the stars of heaven around the throne of the Lord of Hosts.

 Even our modern understanding of nuclear weapons reveals that the greatest natural power lies within the microcosm of an atom.

 Eze 1:4/5 ¶  And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire.  Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man.

 Ezekiel’s vision of the throne reveals wheels within wheels in motion at the center of a whirlwind.

Gen 1:9/13 ¶  And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.  And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. {grass: Heb. tender grass}   And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.  And the evening and the morning were the third day.

It should be noted that a divine command is given by this petition of the Son to the Father.

John 1:1/5 ¶  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.   The same was in the beginning with God.  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.  In him was life; and the life was the light of men.¶  And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

 2Pe 3: 5/7  For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:   Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:  But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.8  But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

 The link between the Apostles comment appears to relate to when God separated the dry land from the Sea.  It also points to the time frames leading up to the deluge in Noah’s lifespan. The thousand years are gleaned from the lifespan of  the  patriarchs who all died just short of a thousand years. 

Gen 3:16/17  ¶  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: {thou…: Heb. eating thou shalt eat} But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. {thou shalt surely…: Heb. dying thou shalt die}

 Gen 5:5  And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

 This gives a yard stick to measure the timeframes of the creation account of the periods comprising of   invisibility and visibility, The Evenings and the Mornings of the events preceding the fourth day.  When we understand that God intervenes within human time spans on this planet whose day length differs from other planets due to there rotation periods , we begin to grasp the fact that God lives in the eternal present, and he is not limited to the constraints of time  that  we measure our lives by. 

One day is with the Lord as a thousand years  That is: All time is as nothing before him, because in the presence as in the nature of God all is eternity; therefore nothing is long, nothing short, before him; no lapse of ages impairs his purposes, nor need he wait to find convenience to execute those purposes.  And when the longest period of time has passed by, it is but as a moment or indivisible point in comparison of eternity.  This thought is well expressed by PLUTARCH, Consol. ad Apoll.:

“If we compare the time of life with eternity, we shall find no difference between long and short.  (ta gar cilia, kai ta muria eth, stigmh tiv estin aoristov, mallon de morion ti bracutaton stigmhv) for a thousand or ten thousand years are but a certain indefinite point, or rather the smallest part of a point.”  The words of the apostle seem to be a quotation from #Ps 90:4. (Adam Clarkes Commentary)

 Ps 90:4  For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

 Of course we could in spite of this declare that all are 24 hour periods. Alternatively we could use the gap theory between the first verse and the second verse of the account as very long period of time.

Genesis 1:1/2 ¶  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.   And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 So these are things we should ponder over and discuss without resorting to incrimination of one another.

 Moses dictated this account to his scribes the Levites during their time in wilderness after the Exodus from Egypt. Recently we have discovered that the pyramids themselves were aligned by the Pharaohs’ to what they saw in the heavens.  The classic one is Orion which the three pyramids on the Giza plateau are aligned too. We know today that the Egyptians had great knowledge of the stars and there movements, as what they saw in heavens they emulated on the ground. In the Genesis account we discover that the patriarchs spent time in Egypt during the famines. 

Ge 12:10 And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land.

Ac 7:22  And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds.

 There is a time marker to the Egyptian beginning of time on the Giza plateau, it is the sphinx and recently we discovered that it looked at itself approximately 12500 years ago. This was calculated by using the precession of the stars.  When the sphinx looked at the constellation of Leo (the image it represents) in 10500 BC.( Source  Keeper of Genesis by  Robert Bauval  and Graham Hancock). 

 This has bothered me for a long time now because of  this time marker and my attempts to construct a chronology of the scriptures , I have discovered that the Masoretic text (Hebrew) used in our KJV bibles for the new testament differs from the Septuagint  (the Greek  translation) which  has a longer period between  Adam and the flood. (See post on Hales Chronology)

 Recently I looked at Orion in the evening sky and noticed that it resembles the Throne Room in the book of Revelation. The Four Beasts and the Father Son and Holy Ghost, the seven major points in the constellation of Orion. Here in the Sothern Hemisphere you can see Exodus through to Calvary (the Southern Cross) written in the night sky. 

Where is this leading you may be asking? 

2Pe 3: 5/7  For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:   Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:  But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.8  But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

 A long Chronology of approx 6000bc plus the six days of creation according to Peter’s definition gives us approx 12000 odd years. A lot longer than the early earth creationists propose. 

Giving us time for the vegetation and the marine and the animal and the insect kingdoms to fill the earth, this appears very improbable in three limited 24 hour periods.   Seasonality affects the reproduction of these which is needed for the producing of seeds and fruit, which use insects and animals and the wind to disperse the fruit and seeds.  The Planet itself has many symbiotic relationships where the various forms of life interact with one another. Like the old saying “No man is an Island”. Moses would have been aware of these relationships in nature, which can be seen in the life of bees that produce honey and wax from plants and in turn pollinate plants and trees. 

I have found flaws in Ushers Chronology as even some may find in mine. 

Then we also do not know how long Adam was in the Garden of Eden before his expulsion, so dating the creation event as occurring in 4004 BC becomes very shortsighted to me. 

So let us debate this point and perhaps we may come to some kind of agreement.

I have created an excerpt from this on his conclusions on the chronology of the scriptures. It makes intresting reading for those intrested in the differing views of Chronology.

The original was published in the 1830′s and contains Profane History and Bible History.  The Author was obviously a very learned man from the contents . For he reconciles the differing cultures of antiquity’s history to the scripture in vary lengthy detailed section .

He also has an understanding of  the use of the Hebrew Alphabet to denote large numbers.

Their are some surprises within its contents , that to some will be highly controversial.

 If you want the entire document then copy  the heading of this  post to paste and search in google as they scanned and digitized the book (511 pages).

Below is a link to my excerpt.

Historical Chronology_ by_ William_ Hales

NB If  you dont have a high speed broadband connection the download may take some time.

In my minds eye I saw a  Armoured Miltary vehicle , this disturbed me as I wondered if it meant some type of trouble in our country. I thought “what now”  as I have had visions in the past and seen them come to pass.

Eventually I dosed off and this morning as I started to wake up I heard three words  “Baron”,”Hertzl” and “Man”, this revived my earlier vision as I had asked “what does this mean” at the time.

So today I started to search the net for a connection to the words. This I found which now identified what the vision meant. However my attempts find a miltary vehicle image resembling the one in the vision was fruitless.

It could be a mobile rocket launcher as some looked similar.

I now believe the State of Israel is in imminent danger of  a suprise attack that will be devastating.
 

The connection of the three words and the vision along with the article in the link below ,which is about the formation and proposal of a homeland for the jews.  It also has the some history of  how the state came into being, and who the baron was. (See Wikipaedia “Baron Herzl”)

Isa 29:7  And the multitude of all the nations that fight against Ariel, even all that fight against her and her munition, and that distress her, shall be as a dream of a night vision.

The Jewish State

To those who aspire to produce a Chronology , this one contains the Scriptures verses and their contents as a reference. It also contains comments from other sources which  help for research.

The Protestant reformation led to the incorporation of the Masoretic text into the Divine Canon.  Prior to this the Early Church Fathers favoured the Septuguaint.

Bishop Usher devised his Chronology from the Masoretic Text.

a-chronology 

The link Below is to a revision of the one above, it contains the occupations of  the land of Israel by other nations up to the Jewish Nation recaptured it in 1967. It is a Pdf Document,

Excell Chronology -Apocalypse-occupations

Attached is another Document that contains the criticism towards the use of the Masoretic  Text. It is worth reading for it highlights the problems encountred due to different texts.

a_dissertation_on_sacred_chronology

The Links Above are PDF files which you can save for your own use as  a source of reference.

Also their is another factor in this puzzle concernining the Chronology  as today some who challenge the validity of the Messiah we proclaim use the  Aleppo Codex which has been translated  from the Hebrew into english and differs substatantially from our translation of the Masoretic text.  When you quote the old testament  to them they produce their modern version to prove that the messiah has not come yet.

Secular Chronology appears to have some errors in it as well , one of them seems to be the  586bc destruction of Jerusalem and Solomons Temple.

The 360 day years that some use to prove the dispensational view of the Seventy weeks of  Daniel disregards the fact that the Levites corrected their calendar periodicaly to align with the Solar by adding in a extra month.  If  this is not taken into account there  will be no Wave offering at the feast of Pentecost because the seasons will be out of kilter with the prescribed feasts.  This includes when Lambs are born as well. 

490 times 5.25 days gives you a discrepancy of  2572.5  days  (a seven year discrepancy).

One other problem is the modern Jewish Year which differs substantially from our division of time into BC and Ad.  If you look up a Jewish Chronology you will discover vast differences from the  Masoretic Text.  Usher computed 4004Bc  they compute 3760 BCE.

So happy hunting , if you have a good chronology you would like to add to this site let me know , or add a Comment with a PDF link to the source for others. If you have any recommendations to correct any Major problems in mine  drop me a line , because sometimes two heads are better than one.

Mt 1:1  The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

The New Testament begins with the lineage of the Messiah. Yet many would dispute this today because they turn a blind eye and refuse to accept it because they choose to follow other traditions or voices.

Lukes gospel differs from Mathews , in that the lineage is longer and extends all the way to Adam in the reverse order to Mathews.

Lu 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. 

There are some differences between the two lineages  and  I have selected  these two commentaries below to aid your understanding.

Adam Clarke’s Commentary

Verse 23. Thirty years of age This was the age required by the law, to which the priests must arrive before they could be installed in their office: See note on “Nu 4:3″.

Nu 4: 3  From thirty years old and upward even until fifty years old, all that enter into the host, to do the work in the tabernacle of the congregation.

Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph This same phrase is used by Herodotus to signify one who was only reputed to be the son of a particular person: touton paiv nomizetai he was SUPPOSED to be this man’s son.

Much learned labour has been used to reconcile this genealogy with that in St. Matthew, {#Mt 1:1-17}, and there are several ways of doing it; the following, which appears to me to be the best, is also the most simple and easy. For a more elaborate discussion of the subject, the reader is referred to the additional observations at the end of the chapter.

MATTHEW, in descending from Abraham to Joseph, the spouse of the blessed virgin, speaks of SONS properly such, by way of natural generation: Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, Luke, in ascending from the Saviour of the world to GOD himself, speaks of sons either properly or improperly such: on this account he uses an indeterminate mode of expression, which may be applied to sons either putatively or really such. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was SUPPOSED the son of Joseph—of Heli—of Matthat, considerable support from Raphelius’s method of reading the original wn wv enomizeto uiov iwshf tou hli, being (when reputed the son of Joseph) the son of Heli, not always speak of sons properly such, is evident from the first and last person which he names: Jesus Christ was only the supposed son of Joseph, because Joseph was the husband of his mother Mary: and Adam, who is said to be the son of God, was such only by creation. After this observation it is next necessary to consider, that, in the genealogy described by St. Luke, there are two sons improperly such: i.e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons.

As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. This import, bishop Pearce has fully shown, nomizesyai bears, in a variety of places—Jesus was considered according to law, or allowed custom, to be the son of Joseph, as he was of Heli.

The two sons-in-law who are to be noticed in this genealogy are Joseph the son-in-law of Heli, whose own father was Jacob, {#Mt 1:16}; and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri, whose own father was Jechonias: {#1Ch 3:17}, and {#Mt 1:12}. This remark alone is sufficient to remove every difficulty. Thus it appears that Joseph, son of Jacob, according to St. Matthew, was son-in-law of Heli, according to St. Luke. And Salathiel, son of Jechonias, according to the former, was son-in-law of Neri, according to the latter.

Mat 1:16  And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
             12  And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
1Ch 3:17  And the sons of Jeconiah; Assir, Salathiel his son,

Mary therefore appears to have been the daughter of Heli; so called by abbreviation for Heliachim, which is the same in Hebrew with Joachim.

Joseph, son of Jacob, and Mary; daughter of Heli, were of the same family: both came from Zerubbabel; Joseph from Abiud, his eldest son, {#Mt 1:13}, and Mary by Rhesa, the youngest. {See #Lu 3:27}.

Salathiel and Zorobabel, from whom St. Matthew and St. Luke cause Christ to proceed, were themselves descended from Solomon in a direct line: and though St. Luke says that Salathiel was son of Neri, who was descended from Nathan, Solomon’s eldest brother, {#1Ch 3:5}, this is only to be understood of his having espoused Nathan’s daughter, and that Neri dying, probably, without male issues the two branches of the family of David, that of Nathan and that of Solomon, were both united in the person of Zerubbabel, by the marriage of Salathiel, chief of the regal family of Solomon, with the daughter of Neri, chief and heretrix of the family of Nathan. Thus it appears that Jesus, son of Mary, reunited in himself all the blood, privileges, and rights of the whole family of David; in consequence of which he is emphatically called, The son of David.

1 ch 3:5  And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon,

It is worthy of being remarked that St. Matthew, who wrote principally for the Jews, extends his genealogy to Abraham through whom the promise of the Messiah was given to the Jews; but St. Luke, who wrote his history for the instruction of the Gentiles, extends his genealogy to Adam, to whom the promise of the Redeemer was given in behalf of himself and of all his posterity.

Mathew Pooles Commentary

Ver. 24-38 There have been great disputes about the genealogy of our Saviour, as recorded both by Matthew and Luke. The adversaries of Christian religion have taken no small advantage from the seeming difference between them, which even many sober writers have thought it no easy matter to reconcile. The apostle hath cautioned us against giving too much heed to endless genealogies, which minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith, #1Ti 1:4; yet certainly it is our duty, as well for the stopping the mouths of such as would clamour against the truth of the whole Scripture, (if not of the whole Christian religion), as, so far as we can, to vindicate holy writ from their little cavils, and thereby also to confirm those who are weak in faith. To make these things as clear as we can: It is plain that both the evangelists agree in their design, by setting down the genealogy of our Saviour, to prove him lineally descended both from Abraham and David, the two persons to whom was made the promise of the Messiah, and the stability of his kingdom, and also in the names of the first fourteen generations, mentioned by Matthew, and here by Luke, #Lu 3:32,33, and to Abraham, #Lu 3:34.

Their disagreement lieth in four things.

1. In the form of the pedigree; Matthew beginning with those who were first, Luke with those who were last in order of time. But this is no valuable exception, one evangelist counts forward, another backward.

2. Matthew counts by three periods, each consisting of fourteen generations; Luke doth not: but neither is this of any moment.

3. Matthew sits down our Saviour’s genealogy before he tells us any thing of his conception or birth; Luke, after his relation of his conception, birth, and baptism.

4. Matthew derives our Saviour’s genealogy but from Abraham; Luke, from Adam.

All these differences lay no foundation for any exception. Several accounts are given why Luke carrieth up the genealogy to Adam; the best seemeth to be this: that Matthew intending his history primarily for the Jews, judged it enough to prove Christ the Son of Abraham, and the Son of David; but Luke designing the information of the whole world, derives him from the common father of mankind. By which means he also showeth the antiquity of the gospel, and lets us know that Christ was he who was promised to Adam, before Abraham’s time, and that the grace of the gospel is not limited to the seed of Abraham. Thus also Luke supplieth what was wanting in Matthew, and truly derives both the first and second act from God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of us all. But besides these differences (hardly worth the taking notice of under that notion) there are some seeming contradictions in the genealogies, yet not such but I think a fair account may be given of to any who will but first consider:

1. That they all lie in what Luke hath, from #Lu 3:23-31, and from the latter end of #Lu 3:34 to the end. So that in #Lu 3:32,33, and part of #Lu 3:34, we have nothing to reconcile.

2. That these words the son is in the Greek only #Lu 3:23, where Christ is said to be “the son of Joseph,” but ever after it is supplied by the translators. So as the Greek runs thus: The Son of Joseph, which was of Heli, which was of Matthat, which was of Levi, which was of Melchi, &c. Which consideration cuts off the first cavil, how Joseph could be the son of Jacob, as Matthew saith, and the son of Heli, as Luke saith; for indeed Luke saith no more than, And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, #Lu 3:23; that is, Christ was of Heli, the supposed son of Joseph, but truly of Heli, the father of Mary his mother. I know that some think Jacob was also called Heli (as it was ordinary with the Jews to have two names); others think that Joseph is called the son, because he was the son-in-law of Heli, by the marriage of the virgin Mary his daughter. (Naomi calleth those her daughters who were but her legal daughters, #Ru 1:11) In this the most agree. But I must confess I think it is Christ, who is here said to be of Heli (though he was reputed, and generally taken, to be the son of Joseph).

3. That Luke is here deriving our Saviour, not from his supposed father Joseph, but from Mary his true mother. It is not to be conceived that Luke, after such a narration of the predictions of his conception as he had given us in the first chapter, should go to derive Christ from Joseph; and this gives us a fair account why the names are so different from David’s time to the birth of Christ.

Joseph (whose pedigree Matthew relates) deriving from Solomon, who was the son of David, succeeding him in the kingdom. Mary (whose pedigree Luke relates) descending from Nathan, #Lu 3:31 1Ch 3:5 tells us he was another son of David. So as after David’s time the persons named which before were the same in our Saviour’s pedigree became diverse, some the progenitors of Joseph, whom Matthew reckons, others the progenitors of Mary, whom Luke nameth. This answereth the objection from the differing number of the persons from Joseph to Zorobabel (excluding them both). Matthew reckoneth but nine, Luke here reckoneth eighteen, in #Lu 3:23-28. From Zorobabel to David Luke reckons twenty-two progenitors, Matthew but fourteen, (leaving out three kings of the half blood of Ahab, of which we gave an account in our notes: See Poole on “Mt 1:1″), so as the Scripture nameth seventeen, though Matthew leaves out three. In two different lines, it is not impossible that one person in so many years might have so many more progenitors than another, supposing Matthew designed to reckon all, which it is plain from his leaving out three kings named in Scripture that he did not.

4. That ordinarily the Jews had two names, sometimes three. All Josiah’s sons had each of them two at least. Matthew had also the name of Levi, &c. This solves the difference from #Lu 3:27, where Rhesa is said to be the son of Zorobabel, whenas Matthew saith, #Mt 1:13, Zorobabel begat Abiud. That Abraham was the son of Terah or Thara, and Terah the son of Nachor, appeareth from #Ge 11:24,26. That Saruch or Serug was the son of Reu or Ragau, appeareth from #Ge 11:20 1Ch 1:25. That Reu was the son of Peleg, (here called Phalec), and Peleg the son of Eber, and Eber the son of Sala, appears from #Ge 11:18 1Ch 1:25. But in #Ge 11:12 we read, that Sala was the son of Arphaxad, whereas he is here said to be the son of Cainan, and Cainan is made the son of Arphaxad. So as Luke maketh Sala grandchild to Arphaxad; Moses makes no mention of Cainan at all, but mentions Salah as begotten by Arphaxad. Those who are curious to know what is said for the resolution of this difficulty, may read it largely both in Spanheim’s Dubia Evangelica, and Mr. Pool’s Synopsis Criticorum. It is a difficulty which hath exercised many very learned men, and I doubt whether ever any yet satisfied himself in the resolution of it. It is not probable that Luke should correct what Moses said; the best account I can give of it is, the Septuagint in #Ge 11:12 have it just as Luke here hath it; and it is certain that Luke, in his quotations out of the Old Testament, doth generally follow the Septuagint, being the translation most in use among them. Beza tells us of an ancient copy of the Gospel he had, which mentions no Cainan. The best of it is, that it is a matter of no great moment, for the question is not, whether Sala was the son of Arphaxad, (for so he was, though Arphaxad was his grandfather, in the same sense that Christ is called the Son of Abraham, and the Son of David, and Elisabeth the daughter of Aaron, #Lu 1:50) but whether he was the immediate son of Arphaxad or Cainan; whether Moses omitted Cainan, or some transcriber of Luke added Cainan out of the Septuagint (being then the current translation among them): the last is most probable. For the other part of the genealogy, #Lu 3:36-38, it plainly agreeth with #Ge 5:6 6:10. So that I must profess I see no great difficulty to reconcile the genealogies, admitting the one to give the genealogy of Joseph, and the other to give the genealogy of Mary. That indeed Mary was the daughter of Heli is not to be proved by Scripture, nor yet contradicted, but it is very probably judged so. And though we cannot prove that Cainan, mentioned #Lu 3:36, was added out of some later copies of the Septuagint, yet it is more than probable it was so. Which two things if we admit, I see no great difficulty remaining, but a fair agreement between both the evangelists. For I presume none will stumble at the alteration of some letter, or omission of some letter in a name, or addition to it in the end; there is nothing more ordinary than that, when names are mentioned in several languages.

My Comments:

In the Koran there is no lineage for Mohammed except for the claim that Ishmael was the first born son of  Abraham.

Modern day Jews and Israeli’s would have a very tough time trying to prove their lineage , because of the diaspora after the destruction of Jerusalem (ad 66-70)  as this was the task of the Levites who never intermarried.

If you have some understanding of the Old Testament you would know that God always worked through his true prophets, and that the Levites were commanded not to intermarry with others.

Ezra 10:18  And among the sons of the priests there were found that had taken strange wives: namely, of the sons of Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren; Maaseiah, and Eliezer, and Jarib, and Gedaliah.19  And they gave their hands that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their trespass.

So who today could claim the right to the High Priesthhod after the order of Aaron , or the right to offer sacrifices for modern Israeli’s.

They would need a prophet from the tribe of  Levi to appoint a High Priest and make the atoning sacrifice. No arbitarily selected sacrifice of a red heifer can solve this problem.

Heb 8:13  In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The letter to the Hebrews is explicit that at the time of writing, the remnants of  the levitical priesthood and its sacricfices would soon be know more.  And as history records all was gone when the Temple was burnt in ad 67 to the 8th of ab Ad 70 all on the temple mount perished.

So those who are promulgating a rebuilt temple  and a reinstituted High Priest Hood and animal sacrifices , must  prove by lineage who will be the High Priest and also who will hold the office of a levite priest.

I seriously doubt that any such records exist today, as the Divine canon is now closed.

The Last person who had a true claim was John the Baptist as the Herod’s took upon themselves to sell the High Priesthood to those of their choice.

Also many of the true levites like Mathew followed Christ.

Ac 6:7  And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

One must beware the self confessed Elijah’s who think they are the modern forerunners to Christ’s reappearance.

Mat 11:13 /14 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.  And if ye will receive it, this is Elias(heb Elijah), which was for to come.

John the Baptist descent was from Aaron , so no gentile can claim this title today.

Mal 2:7  For the priest’s (levites) lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.
Mal 3:1  Behold, I will send my messenger(John), and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant(Christ), whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

Mal 4:5  Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:

Mt 17:12  But I say unto you, That Elias( Heb Elijah) is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

Lu 1:5  There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Lu 1:12  And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
Lu 1:13  But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

William Branham and John Alexander Dowie led many astray in the past , for they indirectly claimed to be Elijah.

In 1901 Dowie proclaimed himself “Elijah the Restorer” and began to wear High-Priestly robes. This caused many disciples to fall away; the subsequent decrease in income combined with the expenses of building Zion marked the beginning of Dowie’s slide into bankruptcy. It was at this time that rumors of his polygamous teaching and activities, use of alcohol, and extravagant lifestyle began to gain currency, not only in the world, but also within the Church. http://www.james-joyce-music.com/extras/dowie_bio.html

William Branham’s Beliefs

• Branham started off as a Baptist and then changed over to a Oneness Pentecostal. He vehemently denied the Trinity of God and took a strong “Jesus Only” stance in regards to the godhead. This alone places him in the ranks of earlier heretics. The early church fathers fought long and hard battles against those who denied the reality of One God in three distinct persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus, his Jesus was not the true Jesus of the Bible.
• Branham also believed he was Elijah the prophet, see the picture above. This picture is available on the William Branham Homepage and many many other sites on the web. What was more, other people believed him to be the prophet Elijah who was to come before the return of Christ Jesus. Branham was not Elijah, thus we can easily see the depth of the deception working in him and his followers.
• Branham taught a works salvation, not uncommon for most Pentecostals, although his form was rather extreme in regards to dress, make-up, etc. Thus, his doctrine of salvation was not sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura as the reformers correctly taught.
• Branham held to the belief in UFO’s and somehow they figure into the end times (which is interesting when one considered the X-Files and Heavens’ Gate).
• He also taught about the great pyramid and its Biblical meaning and significance to his ministry.

Branham died in 1963 after his car was struck by a drunk driver. For many days after his death several well known Latter Rain ministers prayed over his body in an attempt to raise Branham from the dead. . .obviously they failed. Source http://forgottenword.org/branham.html

So the moral of all this is beware the false prophet’s coming in sheeps clothing , who make claims to those whose ignorance of the scripture is obvious. When I was a babe in Christ I got caught up in the hype of these so called great men of God, due to my lack of knowledge. There is no support in the scripture for another coming of Elijah or a Physical return of Christ.

For years I kept trying to calculate the length of the Gap between 69th an 70th week of  the Arch Angel  Gabriel’s message to the Prophet Daniel.

Da 19:1 ¶  In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;
2  In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.
3  And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes:…….
19  O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name.
20 ¶  And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God;
21  Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.
22  And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.
23  At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.
24  Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
25  Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26  And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27  And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

At that time I had been influenced by my peers who taught the Futurist Dispensational view of  eschatology.

But the nagging question of the length of the Gap  they proposed between Christ triumphant entry into Jerusalem and the rebuilding of  another Temple  for the Anti Christ to sit in , I could not resolve.

I tried the year day theory with no success, then I attempted using the 50 year Jubilee Cycle which brought me to date in 1997.  The Year passed and that too failed.

I downloaded a Online Bible shortly after that and the work I am attaching to this post arrived with it.

I had read many futurist books before this and I reluctently viewed this inspired work, thinking here comes another fanciful end times view.

Is there a gap in Daniels seventy weeks ?  Here is the Pdf link to the answer just click on it 1921_mauro_seventyweeks