|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 11, 2007 19:20:20 GMT -4
I haven't checked Ruth, but I really thought she was a widow (I knew she converted, that sort of being the point). I'll check in the morning.
So we do have one adulteress and one harlot, plus a Jewish convert. Why mention them in the genealogy? Wouldn't it have been better to mention the women in the genealogy who were a bit more pure?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 11, 2007 19:30:43 GMT -4
Quote: The prophecies demand that he not have a human father
Where's this indeed! From what I've read, this Messiah/God as one is unique to Christianity, not part of any Jewish scriptures.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 11, 2007 21:22:26 GMT -4
Ruth was a widow - until she married again. If you're married then you're no longer a widow, as I understand it.
Why are people with a colorful past mentioned in Jesus' genealogy? Because that's who David was descended from, and thus who Jesus was descended from.
And who did Jesus hang around with during his life? Fishermen, publicans, harlots, and sinners. Not the most pure of people.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 12, 2007 8:25:58 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 12, 2007 10:36:25 GMT -4
*sigh* Did you notice, Dead Hoosiers, that several women are mentioned in Matthew's genealogy? Thamar (Tamar), Rachab, and Ruth, and Mary herself as Joseph's wife (Bathsheba is also mentioned as "her who had been the wife of Uriah"). So it's not true that women were never mentioned in a genealogy. I probably should note that though I see it possible to read Luke as a genealogy of Mary I don't think it's necessary. Some LDS scholars see both genealogies as being that of Joseph, with Matthew giving the royal legal line of succession and Luke giving actual biological descent, but also view Mary as being of the House of David. Jesus is therefore both legally, by his adoption by Joseph, and biologically, from his descent from Mary, a Son of David. He also is not subject to the curse of Coniah, as he is not a biological decendent of Coniah. Jason, I know that women are mentioned in the Bible. I see there are women in Matthew's genealogy. I also see that, although the women are referred to, they are not referred to as being the ones through whom the legal title passes--only the men. It occurred to me to ask where Luke and Matt. got their information and I think that they probably consulted the genealogy records in the temple (where only the men would be recorded). Yet Jewish Matthew tosses in some moms (he'd be familiar with the Torah). Gentile Luke does not. Seventy years later the temple was destroyed and all those records are lost. Anyone from that time on who claimed to be the messiah would not be able to establish his birthright. Interesting. How could both g's be for Joseph when one line is traced through Nathan and the other through Jeconiah? I agree with what you say about Christ's right being established both legally and genetically. And they are both of the house of David and the tribe of Judah. But no biological child of Joseph could assume the throne of David due to God's curse on Jeconiah. Therefore, the other genealogy has to be Mary's, who is not mentioned by Luke, as I suspect, because he consulted the temple records where only the men would be listed.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 12, 2007 10:47:19 GMT -4
Quote: The prophecies demand that he not have a human fatherWhere's this indeed! From what I've read, this Messiah/God as one is unique to Christianity, not part of any Jewish scriptures. Here's three: Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Mic 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting. Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Just so we don't have to do a discussion on the word "virgin," since nearly all children are born to young women (esp. in those days), what kind of a lame sign would that be to Israel, to tell them that their sign was a young woman giving birth? The Jews ignored their own scriptures when condemning Jesus to death for claiming to be God.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 12, 2007 10:55:09 GMT -4
Everyone mentioned in the Bible, except Jesus, sinned. Look at David. He was an adulterer and a backstabbing murderer, so let's not single out the women. Rahab saved the Israeli army and received a reward and David was a man after God's own heart.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 12, 2007 11:24:29 GMT -4
Well how about that - maybe it is the same Rahab. I guess you learn something every day.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 12, 2007 11:29:18 GMT -4
So it would seem that all four women in Jesus' genealogy have questionable or irregular backgrounds. Three of them are guilty of sexual impropriety. No fishermen or publicans, however. The fishermen and publicans Jesus hung around with that I am referring to are some of the apostles. I dare you to go make that accusation in front of a Catholic church.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 12, 2007 11:34:59 GMT -4
Jason, I know that women are mentioned in the Bible. I see there are women in Matthew's genealogy. I also see that, although the women are referred to, they are not referred to as being the ones through whom the legal title passes--only the men. Yes, but the point is that you were saying they weren't even mentioned, which is not true. One is the royal line of succession and one is biological descent. The biological descent doesn't necessarily follow the eldest born, so there are differences between the two. Again, look at your own genealogy long enough and you're likely to find multiple paths to the same ancestor. That doesn't necessarily follow. Even if both genealogies are of Joseph, Jesus still isn't Joseph's biological son and thus is not subject to the curse.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 12, 2007 15:33:27 GMT -4
Jason, I know that women are mentioned in the Bible. I see there are women in Matthew's genealogy. I also see that, although the women are referred to, they are not referred to as being the ones through whom the legal title passes--only the men. Yes, but the point is that you were saying they weren't even mentioned, which is not true.quote] You're right. I've been kicking myself ever since I posted this morning. The brain is thinking that the rights go with the male descendents only while the fingers are lying. Just kidding. I had no intent to deceive, but that's what I wrote. Worse, I did it again a couple of posts later. I want to make sure I'm understanding you. Let me think out loud here. Agreed that one line is the royal succession and the other is biological descent. Joseph, being biologically descended from Jeconiah, could not have a biological son ascend the throne of David, but he could bequeath Him the legal right. The Luke account shows Christ's biological lineage through Nathan, which is fine, except when you get to...to...I have to look it up. I'm at work. But I'm getting stuck because the accounts don't match after a certain point. That tells me it's not the same person. Even the names of Joseph's father isn't the same. See if you can make anything of this. I'll be back later.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 12, 2007 15:58:55 GMT -4
Well, think about it this way. I am my father Stan's oldest son, but he is not the eldest son of his father Vean - that would be my uncle Dick (Richard). My genealogy would read "Jason, son of Stan, son of Vean, son of Beense", but if my uncle Dick had no children and my great grandfather's property and legal rights then defaulted to me, then the genealogy of my property rights would read "From Beense, inherited by Vean, inherited by Dick, inherited by Jason," even though Richard is my uncle, not my father.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 12, 2007 19:03:56 GMT -4
Can someone please tie this into whether or not it provides evidence for the existance of Jesus, or am I in too much of a hurry? I also realized that you three have read much more of the Bible than I have! But the research is fun and I'm learning stuff. Consider me an amateur - now if the thread was about Letterforms and Typography or Rock'n Roll you'd have a tiger on your hands!
Unimportant note: I may not be contributing as much in the next while because I have to exciting job of scanning into the computer every non-digital picture that is in the house. Actually, it's not so tedius as it sounds because it the pictures keep me smiling and the memories refreshed...
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 12, 2007 22:11:16 GMT -4
Well, think about it this way. I am my father Stan's oldest son, but he is not the eldest son of his father Vean - that would be my uncle Dick (Richard). My genealogy would read "Jason, son of Stan, son of Vean, son of Beense", but if my uncle Dick had no children and my great grandfather's property and legal rights then defaulted to me, then the genealogy of my property rights would read "From Beense, inherited by Vean, inherited by Dick, inherited by Jason," even though Richard is my uncle, not my father. I understand what you're saying about your family, but don't see how that applies to Luke & Matt. I'm putting up a chart here. It's not copyrighted. No common ancestors after David until you get to Salathiel and Zerubbabel. Then they differ again until you get to Joseph (listed here as "(Mary)"). Without doing a whole lot of guesswork, isn't it most likely that Luke is Mary's genealogy and attributes the lineage to Joseph as Heli's son in law (it's apparent he had no sons), but that the bloodline is actually to Mary? [a href=" "] [/a]
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 13, 2007 9:01:35 GMT -4
Well, again, the major problems here are that Luke's genealogy says Joseph, not Mary, and both genealogies very much seem to be making direct father-son connections throughout. When trying to make a direct link from Jesus to David, it would make no sense to provide a genealogy where names had to be swapped around or links were missing. Both genealogies appear to be making direct connections from Joseph to David.
If Luke had wanted to connect Mary to the genealogy, he could have made it abundantly clear. He did not.
To me, it appears to be the case that the genealogies once connected Jesus to David -- at a time before the virgin birth was attached to the Jesus story. The curse in Matthew's line was a mistake, probably due to the author of Matthew missing the curse altogether when he copied that part of the genealogy from Chronicles.
On the subject of the women in Matthew's genealogy, I suggest that they are there to relieve doubts about how Mary became pregnant before Joseph had the legal right to conjugal relations with her. There are other imperfect women in the genealogy, so there was no reason for Mary to be perfect. Again, this would have been at a time when Jesus was claimed to be the Messiah, not the son of God.
In reviewing what we know about Mary, I have to say I was struck by how little there is of her in Paul and in the Gospels. Paul really says nothing of her at all. Mark provides a glimpse of her, but no details. Luke and Matthew give us a bit better picture, but not all that much. John gives us that she had a sister. We don't know her parents' names or much of anything else about her.
|
|