The Vinita daily chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1902-1913, 1912-03-06
The Truth About The Two oenesioslss
q Jesus, The Christ
fBy FL Safhan)


thinker. have 6eeu startled at the
bold and blatant assumptions made By
the latter AZ to the authenticity Of the
sacred Scriptures. at their blasphem-
Gus and obscene references as 70 the
origon Of Jesus. the Christ; their con
temptaoas treatment Of the stories Of
The Flood of NOAH the Sun Stand
ing snH.a and Jonah and the Great
Fish, etc.
with no desire 70 angwer these an
cient faultfnders and sccptics. but
simply 70 set at rest the minds Of
some who may have been disturbed at
the asperslons cast on the Word Of
God. the writer temporarily enters the
llst Of the defenders Of the faith once
for All delivered 70 the saints.'
not a solitary sentence these par
ties have given utterance to but Is
foary with age. and not an infidel OBJ
lection they have advanced but has
been answered thousands OF times in
the past by able. dcyont, truthful. and
scholarly defenders OF the Bible And
satisfactorily at that, at least salts
factory TO any reyerent seeker after
the truth. But these little cheap two
by-four seyenth.rate disciples Of old
Aatrue. Tom Paine. and Bob Ingersoll
these infintesimal itch-microbes whom
bath OF the truth would annihlate
as thoroughly as did the food their
antediluyian prototypes; these men
whose lives and hearts would not bear
the inspectlo nof half-blind bat;
these muckrakers OF their father the
Devil. who seem 10 be obliyious to the
fact that long ago their old skunk
cabbage arguments" were supposedly
buried out OF sight hopefully beyond
resurrection. will every now and then,
when opportunity is offered. bob up
and run into print with the same old
rotten bogey stuff, the which they
steal from the moldy and bad-smelling
pages of their old infidel books.
The latest assault these mildewed
and antI0uated local infidels have
made on the Bible has been with ref
erence TO the two genealogies Of Jesus,
the Christ. For centuries, every now
and then, some old infidel kicker has
arisen and had bis little say as to that
apparent discrepancy. But the solu-
tion OF the difficulty is very simple
FIRST The genealogy given. in
Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph,
the reputed father OF Jesus-hls father
In the eyes Of the law The genealogy
given in Luke is the genealogy of Mary
the mother OF Jesus, and IL the human
genealogy of Jesus Christ in actual
fact. TO all Bible students Of any
note Il is well-known that Matthew Isl
essentially Jewish in character and
was written for the Jewes. All through
It Joseph is prominent and Mary Isl
scarcely mentioned In Lake, on the
other hand Mary is the chieI person.
age in the whole account Of the Saw
iour's conception and birth Here We
see that Joseph is brought IN only IN
cidentally and because he was Marg's
husband. There is deep significance
In all this
SECOND In the Gospel Of Matthew
Jesus appears as the Messiah, In
Luke he is beheld as the Son Of Man,
our brother and Redeemer, who be-
longs to the whole race and claims
kindred with all kinds and conditions
OF men. But In Matthew we see the
geneology takes It's head in Abraham,
the federal head OF the Jewish race,
and descends on down to Joseph and
Jesus, because all predictions and
promises touching the Messiah are
fulfilled In Him, In Luke the genealogy
ascends from Jesus to Adam. because
the genealogy is being traced back to
the head of the whole race and shows
the relation Of the second Adam to the
first.
THIRD In Matthew, again, we have
the strictly royal line from David to
Joseph, In Luke, though the line of
descent is from David. II is not the
royal line, In this Jesus is descended
from David through Nathan, David's
son indeed, but not in the royal line,
and the record follows a line quite dis
tlnct from the royal line.
FOURTH. Let any one take their
Bible, and looking up the following
passages OF Scripture, they win see
that the Messiah, according to pre-
dIctlon, was to be the actual son of
David according to the flesh. These
prophecies are fulfilled by Jesus being
the son Of Mary, who was lineal de-
scendent of David, though not in the
royal line. Joseph, who was OF the
royal line. was NOT his father ae-
cordIng 10 the flesh. but WAS his
s.t l.. .t tnvnc nts rrfIE ANV