The Genealogy of J---s Question
vince garcia
>
> This issue was central in my eventual decision to return to Judaism. Before I
> did, I tried to sort this question out, and asked many scholars on both sides
> of the religious divide. I never got any satisfactory answers.
>
> I'm wondering what the thoughts are of those here about it?
Ed form will probably give a better answer than I will, but Matthew's
genealogy is assumed to be the genealogy of Joseph, whereas Luke records
Mary’s. Matt's genealogy is intentionally incomplete to come out to 42
generations. Matthew’s reasoning for it is a mystery. He may be omitting
insignificant ancestors which is permissible. The numeric value of
David’s name is 14 and this may play into it. There were also 14
Zadoqite high priests from the time of the Tabernacle of Congregation to
the erection of Solomon’s Temple, another possible inspiration for
Matthew’s manipulation of the genealogy.
Luke probably gives Mary’s genealogy, which, according to custom, places
Joseph as “the son of Heli” since he, as the husband, is head of the
family and passes on the birthright. (The text in Greek also is worded
differently when we come to Joseph--”...being the son of Joseph, of the
Heli, of the Matthat...,” etc.) David Stern suggests this is the
genealogy of Joseph’s mother. Julius Africanus, a 2nd century historian,
claimed that relatives of Jesus asserted that Luke’s genealogy is also
that of Joseph, but is traced through different males because of
Levirate marriages in the line which Matthew does not list. Against
this, for one thing, is the fact that the Jerusalem Talmud appears to
confirm that Mary was the daughter of Heli, although some dispute that
the woman spoken of therein is Mary the mother of Jesus. The same people
may also be known by different names in the two genealogies. (Philo
claimed Neri was Jeconias, for example). So a perfect answer cannot be
given
>
> For those who don't understand it, in brief:
>
> Christians believe J was the Mashiach. They say he descends from the line of
> King David.
>
> In reading the NT genealogy in Matthew, it gives the genealogy of Joseph. But
> Christians say Joseph was not his bio father. So why does Joseph's genealogy
> matter in there?
Presumably because some people would want to know Joseph's genealogy
since the father usually hands down the birthright. Joseph was the
husband of MAry was the child when born, and presumably that grants the
child the right to his birthright even tho conceived by the Holy Spirit
since the Scripture does not make a distinction between a natural birth
and a Divine birth
>
> There are also some omissions from the genealogy, and also the one in Luke.
>
> The messiahship of J stands or falls (IMO) on whether he can truly be proven to
> be Mashiach from the genealogies. Only Jews waited for a Mashiach, and the
> Jewish rules are all that apply.
Not necessarily. Unless a rule can be shown to be explicitly scriptural
rather than oral, it does not have the same weight simply because oral
traditions are fallible, and the Messiah, who has the same authority of
Moses, is not bound by the rulings of the elders any more than Moses
would be.
>
> The only way J could be a Messiah is if Joseph was his actual father, in which
> case that would contradict the NT where it says G-d was his father. Plus, J
> would then not be divine, but 100% human.
and some people think He was, but aside from that, I think you're coming
at this from one particular world view which is not fully verifiable
from Scripture but presupposes that oral tradition is equally binding, a
concept much of christianity rejects for good reason since historically
the fruit of the concept is bad
v
John Cooper
> Joseph as "the son of Heli" since he, as the husband, is head of the
> family and passes on the birthright. (The text in Greek also is worded
> differently when we come to Joseph--"...being the son of Joseph, of the
> Heli, of the Matthat...," etc.)
Also the word's 'the son' do not appear in the Greek after the expression
'being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph'. They are supplied to make
sense in the English. Whereas most are father/son relationships, not all
are (see verse 38).
> > Christians believe J was the Mashiach. They say he descends from the
line of
> > King David.
> >
> > In reading the NT genealogy in Matthew, it gives the genealogy of
Joseph. But
> > Christians say Joseph was not his bio father. So why does Joseph's
genealogy
> > matter in there?
According to Luke, Jesus descended from King David through his son Nathan
(verse 31).
John Cooper
BUSHBADEE
<bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>seph. But
>> > Christians say Joseph was not his bio father. So why does Joseph's
>genealogy
>> > matter in there?
>
>According to Luke, Jesus descended from King David through his son Nathan
>(verse 31).
>
>John Cooper
>
The differences in the gospels are immaterial.
They are not history.
They are textbooks to teach Christianity.
Each author had his own approach
and therefore the gospels differ.
.
.
I DO NOT FOLLOW MANY OF THESE NEWS GROUPS
To answere me address mail to
Bush...@aol.com
Malachi Z. Goodman
> And in Judaism, the biologial is what matters. A child of a Kohen who is
> adopted by a non-Kohen does not receive the Hebrew name of the adopted
father
> but keeps the Kohen one.
>
This is correct - Yeshu is not a descendant of David, according to Jewish
law.
Malachi
Malachi Z. Goodman
> IIRC, there are genealogies with omissions in Tana"kh as well.
This is beside the point - no-one in the Tanakh is being cited by a foreign
religion with Messianic claims. because the attempt is to cite Yeshu as
Moshiakh (which he cannot be), the claim is crucial.
Yeshu has not done any of the things required of Moshiakh, not to mention
came too early in history to be moshiakh.
>
> >The only way J could be a Messiah is if Joseph was his actual father, in
which
> >case that would contradict the NT where it says G-d was his father. Plus,
J
> >would then not be divine, but 100% human.
>
> This position doesn't hold up under scrutiny in modern biology, nor
> scrutiny of the Scripture (including the NT).
Fred, you're incorrect here - according to Jewish law, Yeshu cannot be
considered Moshiakh for this very reason. Since we have contradictions in
his genealogies, we must dismiss them according to Torah law. Next, the fact
that Joseph is admittedly not his father means Yeshu cannot be considered a
descendant of David, voiding his claims to Moshiakh.
It is not up to us to prove Judaism, as we were here first. Since the claims
of Yeshu rest upon Judaism, it is up to you to prove yourselves according to
Judaism, and Jewish law. This has failed for 2,000 years now.
We reject the claim.
Malachi
John Cooper
"Malachi Z. Goodman" <mal...@torahscroll.com> wrote in message
news:gAid5.3472$in.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
How do you explain Luke 3:31 which says that Jesus was the son of David
through Nathan?
John Cooper
Arthur Salzberg
"John F. Nixon" <jfn...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:paocns8ko7birih7h...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:05:00 GMT, "Malachi Z. Goodman"
> <mal...@torahscroll.com> wrote:
>
> >> IIRC, there are genealogies with omissions in Tana"kh as well.
> >
> >This is beside the point
>
> authoritative, that means they aren't a disqualifying feature for the
> work.
That is not very clear thinking -- an erroneous genealogy means the
genealogy contains an error.
Whether that error is signicifant turns of what claims are being made based
upon the genealogy.
For the NT's, Jesus's garbled and uncertain parentage makes claims dependent
upon his genealogy suspect.
Since Christianity has claimed for 2000 years that Jesus is the Jewish
messiah based upon a flawed geneology, that appears to be major flaw.
Indeed, it is one the many reasons Jews have rejected such Christian claims.
Erroneous geneologies in the Hebrew Bible (if there are any), on the other
hand, are of little or of no consequence to anyone, and that is the point I
believe the original poster was making.
> [...]
> >Yeshu has not done any of the things required of Moshiakh, not to mention
> >came too early in history to be moshiakh.
>
> Could he have been Mashiach ben Yosef? Theoretically speaking, of
> course.
It is really an absurd stretch of Christian apologetics to paste over the
obvious flaws of the NT'a genealogy claims to Jesus being the Davidic
Messiah with a Rabbinic/Talmudic invention of a later era, probably
originally offered to explain Bar Kochba's failure. (Raphael Patia
speculations aside)
The Jesus of the NT doesn't fit Mashiach ben Yosef, and no such claim is
made for him in the NT, Joseph being only the putative father-- and that's
exactly the problem of the NTs authors garbled attempt to link Jesus' to
David's lineage.
It's curious that in the NT, only Mt and Lk mention J's genealogy-- Paul
either didn't know of them, or as likely, knew there was a problem with it
and determined that it just didn't matter, for surely he would have used
this evidence to bolster claims if it was available or true. Paul wanted
Jesus to be proclaimed to the Gentiles, and hence a Davidic lineage is
superfluous, indeed limiting, robbing Jesus of a more universalistic
message. Perhaps Christians ought to consider that making such claims to
God's Elect, the Jewish People-- who obviously see the flaw-- rather than to
the Gentiles as Paul implicitly counsels, is a waste of time
How odd that Christians who post here attempt proofs of things that no
objective reader could accept, and as important, don't need to proved and
can't be proved to begin with.
Bob Felts
> "John F. Nixon" <jfn...@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:paocns8ko7birih7h...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:05:00 GMT, "Malachi Z. Goodman"
> > <mal...@torahscroll.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> IIRC, there are genealogies with omissions in Tana"kh as well.
> > >
> > >This is beside the point
> >
> > Really? If genealogies have omissions in works you acknowledge as
> > authoritative, that means they aren't a disqualifying feature for the
> > work.
>
> That is not very clear thinking -- an erroneous genealogy means the
> genealogy contains an error.
Excuse me for butting in, but you are the one who isn't thinking
clearly. If a genealogy is erroneous because it contains an omission,
then genealogies in Tanakh are likewise erroneous. Do you recogonize
the genealogies in Tanakh which contains omissions to be erroneous? If
not, why not?
>
> Whether that error is signicifant turns of what claims are being made based
> upon the genealogy.
>
> For the NT's, Jesus's garbled and uncertain parentage makes claims
> dependent upon his genealogy suspect.
His parentage isn't uncertain. His mother was Mary, His father was
Joseph, and He was born of a virgin.
>
> Since Christianity has claimed for 2000 years that Jesus is the Jewish
> messiah based upon a flawed geneology, that appears to be major flaw.
No, the genealogy is only one small part of the claim. The major claim
is His resurrection from the dead.
[...]
>
> Erroneous geneologies in the Hebrew Bible (if there are any), on the other
> hand, are of little or of no consequence to anyone, and that is the point
> I believe the original poster was making.
If Jesus' genealogy wasn't in Matthew or Luke, it wouldn't have made any
difference, either. Remember, the one overwhelming statement made by
the church about Jesus is not "He was born of Mary and Joseph" but "He
is Risen".
[...]
__|_____
| Bob Felts
| wr...@stablecross.com
| http://www.mindspring.com/~wrf3
Arthur Salzberg
"Bob Felts" <wr...@stablecross.com> wrote in message
news:1ee2b56.1pzpw594594jkN%wr...@stablecross.com...
> Arthur Salzberg <art...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > "John F. Nixon" <jfn...@ieee.org> wrote in message
> > news:paocns8ko7birih7h...@4ax.com...
> > > On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:05:00 GMT, "Malachi Z. Goodman"
> > > <mal...@torahscroll.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> IIRC, there are genealogies with omissions in Tana"kh as well.
> > > >
> > > >This is beside the point
> > >
> > > Really? If genealogies have omissions in works you acknowledge as
> > > authoritative, that means they aren't a disqualifying feature for the
> > > work.
> >
> > That is not very clear thinking -- an erroneous genealogy means the
> > genealogy contains an error.
>
> Excuse me for butting in, but you are the one who isn't thinking
> clearly. If a genealogy is erroneous because it contains an omission,
> then genealogies in Tanakh are likewise erroneous. Do you recogonize
> the genealogies in Tanakh which contains omissions to be erroneous?
If there is any error of genealogy in the Hebrew Bible, then I suppose all
of Christian claims fail as well--the whole of Christian faith rests upon
Jesus Jewish lineage.
I happen to agree with what many NT scholars have concluded about the Jesus
genealogies in Lk and Mt: they are myths, no better than fairy tales,
likely concoted to answer Jewish claims that Jesus was the product of an
illicit affair with a Roman soldier. Even early church father Eusebius
writes "each of the faiful has been zealous in making guesses on these
passages."
Christians who post here in support of the accuracy of these genealogical
fantasies do themselves a disservice, and ought to move on to more important
things.
> If
> not, why not?
I am not aware of any tenent or faith of the Jewish people dependent upon an
accurate genealogy in the Hebrew, unlike the Christian claims to Jesus'
messiahship based upon his Jewish descent form David.
> >
> > Whether that error is signicifant turns of what claims are being made
based
> > upon the genealogy.
> >
> > For the NT's, Jesus's garbled and uncertain parentage makes claims
> > dependent upon his genealogy suspect.
>
> His parentage isn't uncertain. His mother was Mary, His father was
> Joseph, and He was born of a virgin.
Your interpolation skirting the plaint text of the NT is of no help, or I
suppose you have your own special understanding of what "virgin" and
"father" mean.
I don't understand why you people just don't get over this issue: the NT
story is only an attempt to claim that Jesus wsa a remarkable person-- the
"virgin" mother story, his genealogy etc are nothing more than the fertile
imagination of early believers. Maybe if and when Christians finally set
Jesus free from the myths they have entombed him in, there can be a return
of all the world to the worship of the One God and obediance to His Holy
Torah.
> > Since Christianity has claimed for 2000 years that Jesus is the Jewish
> > messiah based upon a flawed geneology, that appears to be major flaw.
>
> No, the genealogy is only one small part of the claim. The major claim
> is His resurrection from the dead.
Another Christian fairy tale to be sure, but the supposed "resurrection"
(whatever that is supposed to mean" is best left to another topic.
> [...]
>
> >
> > Erroneous geneologies in the Hebrew Bible (if there are any), on the
other
> > hand, are of little or of no consequence to anyone, and that is the
point
> > I believe the original poster was making.
>
> If Jesus' genealogy wasn't in Matthew or Luke, it wouldn't have made any
> difference, either. Remember, the one overwhelming statement made by
> the church about Jesus is not "He was born of Mary and Joseph" but "He
> is Risen".
But the genealogies are still there in all their inacurrate and glaring
error, a significant part of the NT and most Christian heritage .
There simply is no comparable weight to be given to any error in the Hebrew
Bible genealogies, even assuming any are in error.
This is not just some minor gaffe, but rather one so significant as to call
into question the authenticity of any claim that Jesus is messiah for the
Jewish people.
Clearly, he is not, neither by birthright, or far more importantly, because
he completely failed to accomplish any of the prophecies expected by the
Jewish people for their Moshiach.
You may considere him your "messiah" but that is because llike other
Gentiles, you have changed the definition of "messiah."
Good luck on your continuing studies.
Bob Felts
> "Bob Felts" <wr...@stablecross.com> wrote in message
> news:1ee2b56.1pzpw594594jkN%wr...@stablecross.com...
> > Arthur Salzberg <art...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "John F. Nixon" <jfn...@ieee.org> wrote in message
> > > news:paocns8ko7birih7h...@4ax.com...
> > > > On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:05:00 GMT, "Malachi Z. Goodman"
> > > > <mal...@torahscroll.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> IIRC, there are genealogies with omissions in Tana"kh as well.
> > > > >
> > > > >This is beside the point
> > > >
> > > > Really? If genealogies have omissions in works you acknowledge as
> > > > authoritative, that means they aren't a disqualifying feature for the
> > > > work.
> > >
> > > That is not very clear thinking -- an erroneous genealogy means the
> > > genealogy contains an error.
> >
> > Excuse me for butting in, but you are the one who isn't thinking
> > clearly. If a genealogy is erroneous because it contains an omission,
> > then genealogies in Tanakh are likewise erroneous. Do you recogonize
> > the genealogies in Tanakh which contains omissions to be erroneous?
>
> If there is any error of genealogy in the Hebrew Bible, then I suppose all
> of Christian claims fail as well--the whole of Christian faith rests upon
> Jesus Jewish lineage.
Once again, you're dodging the issue. Does an omission in a genealogy
make the genealogy erroneous?
>
> I happen to agree with what many NT scholars have concluded about the
> Jesus genealogies in Lk and Mt: they are myths, no better than fairy
> tales, likely concoted to answer Jewish claims that Jesus was the product
> of an illicit affair with a Roman soldier.
Of course you happen to agree. So what? Scholars have been known to
not agree on anything. They've also been known to be wrong on
occassion.
> Even early church father Eusebius writes "each of the faiful has been
> zealous in making guesses on these passages."
There are passages in Tanakh about which one could say the same for the
Rabbis. So what?
> Christians who post here in support of the accuracy of these genealogical
> fantasies do themselves a disservice, and ought to move on to more
> important things.
Like what? Nothing is more important than the person and work of Jesus.
>
> > If not, why not?
>
> I am not aware of any tenent or faith of the Jewish people dependent upon
> an accurate genealogy in the Hebrew, unlike the Christian claims to Jesus'
> messiahship based upon his Jewish descent form David.
Really? So it wouldn't matter to you if you were descended, say, from
Esau? Or if your priests (if and when the temple is rebuilt) aren't
descended from Levi?
>
> > >
> > > Whether that error is signicifant turns of what claims are being made
> > > based upon the genealogy.
> > >
> > > For the NT's, Jesus's garbled and uncertain parentage makes claims
> > > dependent upon his genealogy suspect.
> >
> > His parentage isn't uncertain. His mother was Mary, His father was
> > Joseph, and He was born of a virgin.
>
> Your interpolation skirting the plaint text of the NT is of no help,
What exactly have I "skirted"? Please be specific.
> or I suppose you have your own special understanding of what "virgin" and
> "father" mean.
Nope. "Virgin" means "not having had intercourse", "father" means "male
parent of a child" whether that child is conceived in the normal way, is
adopted, or happens to be the result of a miracle. Jewish scripture
refers to God as "father". Do you have a special understanding of that?
>
> I don't understand why you people just don't get over this issue:
Because we don't like your attempts to distort the facts? Just
guessing.
> the NT story is only an attempt to claim that Jesus wsa a remarkable
> person-- the "virgin" mother story, his genealogy etc are nothing more
> than the fertile imagination of early believers.
Unless, of course, it happens to be true.
> Maybe if and when Christians finally set Jesus free from the myths they
> have entombed him in, there can be a return of all the world to the
> worship of the One God and obediance to His Holy Torah.
Jesus said that the one who rejects Him rejects "the One God".
>
>
> > > Since Christianity has claimed for 2000 years that Jesus is the Jewish
> > > messiah based upon a flawed geneology, that appears to be major flaw.
> >
> > No, the genealogy is only one small part of the claim. The major claim
> > is His resurrection from the dead.
>
> Another Christian fairy tale to be sure, but the supposed "resurrection"
> (whatever that is supposed to mean" is best left to another topic.
It means exactly what it says. Jesus rose bodily from the grave.
>
> > [...]
> >
> > >
> > > Erroneous geneologies in the Hebrew Bible (if there are any), on the
> > > other hand, are of little or of no consequence to anyone, and that is
> > > the point I believe the original poster was making.
> >
> > If Jesus' genealogy wasn't in Matthew or Luke, it wouldn't have made any
> > difference, either. Remember, the one overwhelming statement made by
> > the church about Jesus is not "He was born of Mary and Joseph" but "He
> > is Risen".
>
> But the genealogies are still there in all their inacurrate and glaring
> error, a significant part of the NT and most Christian heritage .
What error? So far, all that has been talked about are omissions. And
it is clear that omissions don't make for an erroneous genealogy.
[...]
>
> You may considere him your "messiah" but that is because llike other
> Gentiles, you have changed the definition of "messiah."
Really? And just how, exactly, have we done that? Jesus, having risen
from the dead, is now doing exactly what the promised Messiah is
supposed to do.
bat...@my-deja.com
"John Cooper" <bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> How do you explain Luke 3:31 which says that Jesus was the son of
David
> through Nathan?
>
> John Cooper
Luke gives a genealogy where Joseph is descended from Heli. Some
Christians claim that Luke is describing Mary's lineage. However, there
is no support for the notion that it is Mary's line. Besides, it
is irrelevant, because lineage is paternal. And therefore this lineage
presents the same problem, namely that Luke was not Jesus's biological
father and therefore cannot pass on any lineage.
Luke's genealogy presents a different problem as well, as the lineage
goes from David to Nathan (not Solomon). However the Bible clearly
states that the Messiah would descend from Solomon:
1 Chron 22:9-10
9.Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of peace, for I
will give him peace from all his enemies, for his name shall be
Solomon...
10.He shall build the HOUSE for my name, and he shall be my son, and I
will be his father, and I WILL establish the throne of HIS kingdom over
Israel FOREVER.
Again this lineage (not through Solomon) effectively removes Joseph,
from ever being a claimant to the royal throne as God states that
he established Solomon and his descendents on the throne forever.
Therefore, Jesus couldn't possibly inherit the throne from Joseph,
even if we ascribe Joseph's lineage to Jesus.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
bat...@my-deja.com
> No, the genealogy is only one small part of the claim. The major
claim
> is His resurrection from the dead.
>
The problem with this is very simple. It isn't foretold in the OT.
There is no Messianic prophesy that says "By thus shall you recognize
the Messiah, he will die and then return to life three days afterward."
In fact, even Jesus's disciples didn't anticipate his resurrection.
Jesus even tells them straight out that he will die and be brought
back, but they don't accept it. Whenever he talks about his imminent
death, his disciples get upset. They don't say "Praise God! You are the
Messiah who will die for our sins and be raised on the third day!"
Instead, they tell him not to talk thus. When the tomb is found empty,
his followers don't say "Praise God! The Messiah lives again!" They
assume that somebody moved the body(John 20:13) "They said to her,
"Women why are you weeping? "She said to them, They have taken away my
Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him." We see that Jesus's
followers, who certainly understood the idea of a Messiah, didn't know
that the Messiah was to die and be resurrected. Therefore, we must
conclude that either the disciples didn't know scripture, or that no
such Messianic description exists in the OT.
Therefore, even if the resurrection did occur it is not a Messianic
event the Messiah will be the person from the House of David who
fulfills the Messianic prophesies, namely brings world peace and
knowledge of God to the whole world. Let's assume for the sake of
argument, that the NT reported the miracles accurately, and that Jesus
did do all these miracles. How does that prove that Jesus is the
Messiah? The OT doesn't say, anywhere that the Messiah will do miracles
nor does it say anywhere that we will know someone is the Messiah
because he did miracles. Why not? The answer is very simple. We know
from the Bible how insignificant miracles are. When Moses went to Egypt,
the magicians of Pharaoh were able to duplicate at least three of the
ten miraculous plagues. When Aaron changed his staff into a snake, the
Egyptians did so as well. Elisha the Prophet brought people back from
the dead, was he the Messiah? Elijah brought down fire from heaven was
he the Messiah? Daniel was thrown in the lion's pit and survived was he
the Messiah? One does not even have to be a legitimate person to be able
to perform miracles. Certainly, one need not be the Messiah to perform
miracles. In fact, God himself specifically says in Deuteronomy 13
1 "If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives
you a sign or a wonder,
2 and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he
says, 'Let us go after other gods,'which you have not known, and let us
serve them,'
3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer
of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you
love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
God specifically says that there will arise false prophets who WILL
do miracles, yet, God says don't follow them.
Bob Felts
> > No, the genealogy is only one small part of the claim. The major
> > claim is His resurrection from the dead.
> >
> > [...]
>
> The problem with this is very simple. It isn't foretold in the OT.
According to whom? Jesus said that it was and showed His disciples the
various passages.
> There is no Messianic prophesy that says "By thus shall you recognize
> the Messiah, he will die and then return to life three days afterward."
> In fact, even Jesus's disciples didn't anticipate his resurrection.
> Jesus even tells them straight out that he will die and be brought
> back, but they don't accept it. Whenever he talks about his imminent
> death, his disciples get upset. They don't say "Praise God! You are the
> Messiah who will die for our sins and be raised on the third day!"
> Instead, they tell him not to talk thus. When the tomb is found empty,
> his followers don't say "Praise God! The Messiah lives again!" They
> assume that somebody moved the body(John 20:13) "They said to her,
> "Women why are you weeping? "She said to them, They have taken away my
> Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him." We see that Jesus's
> followers, who certainly understood the idea of a Messiah, didn't know
> that the Messiah was to die and be resurrected. Therefore, we must
> conclude that either the disciples didn't know scripture, or that no
> such Messianic description exists in the OT.
The first explanation is the correct one. Since you referenced John
10:13, you might want to look at Luke 24:26-47; Acts 3:17-18 (not
particularly the first part, "I know that you acted in ignorance, as did
also your rulers", and Acts 17:2-3.
>
> Therefore, even if the resurrection did occur it is not a Messianic
> event the Messiah will be the person from the House of David who
> fulfills the Messianic prophesies, namely brings world peace and
> knowledge of God to the whole world.
Sure. But the problem with this all too typical objection is that
there's a hidden assumption about the timeframe in which this occurs. A
man who has been raised from the dead will accomplish this on his own
time frame -- not yours.
> Let's assume for the sake of argument, that the NT reported the miracles
> accurately, and that Jesus did do all these miracles. How does that prove
> that Jesus is the Messiah? The OT doesn't say, anywhere that the Messiah
> will do miracles nor does it say anywhere that we will know someone is the
> Messiah because he did miracles. Why not? The answer is very simple. We
> know from the Bible how insignificant miracles are.
So _that's_ why God performed miracles for Moses to show him that God
did, in fact, want him for His spokesman and that, in fact, God would
end the slavery in Egypt. Tell me, why does God perform miracles for
the Israelites if miracles are as insignificant as you claim they are?
[...]
> In fact, God himself specifically says in Deuteronomy 13
> 1 "If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives
> you a sign or a wonder,
> 2 and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he
> says, 'Let us go after other gods,'which you have not known, and let us
> serve them,'
> 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer
> of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you
> love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
>
> God specifically says that there will arise false prophets who WILL
> do miracles, yet, God says don't follow them.
>
So? On what do you base your claim that Jesus is a false prophet?
BUSHBADEE
>
>How do you explain Luke 3:31 which says that Jesus was the son of David
>through Nathan?
>
>John Cooper
>
The same way I explain Alice in Wonderland which says the rabbit was white when
we all know he was brown.
What difference does it make.
The Gospels are teaching tools and not history.
John Cooper
<bat...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8l7fu2$qi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8l4r9i$r9f$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "John Cooper" <bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > How do you explain Luke 3:31 which says that Jesus was the son of
> David
> > through Nathan?
> >
> > John Cooper
>
> Christians claim that Luke is describing Mary's lineage. However, there
> is no support for the notion that it is Mary's line. Besides, it
> is irrelevant, because lineage is paternal. And therefore this lineage
> presents the same problem, namely that Luke was not Jesus's biological
> father and therefore cannot pass on any lineage.
>
> Luke's genealogy presents a different problem as well, as the lineage
> goes from David to Nathan (not Solomon). However the Bible clearly
> states that the Messiah would descend from Solomon:
> 1 Chron 22:9-10
> 9.Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of peace, for I
> will give him peace from all his enemies, for his name shall be
> Solomon...
> 10.He shall build the HOUSE for my name, and he shall be my son, and I
> will be his father, and I WILL establish the throne of HIS kingdom over
> Israel FOREVER.
>
> Again this lineage (not through Solomon) effectively removes Joseph,
> from ever being a claimant to the royal throne as God states that
> he established Solomon and his descendents on the throne forever.
> Therefore, Jesus couldn't possibly inherit the throne from Joseph,
> even if we ascribe Joseph's lineage to Jesus.
If we say that Jesus received the *legal right* to the throne of David
through Joseph being his *legal* (not literal) father, and that he descended
from David *literally* through Nathan and his mother Mary, then I cannot see
that there is a problem. The verses in Chronicles do not say that the
Messiah had to be a descendent of Solomon. In any case, the promises of God
are always with conditions (1 Kings 2:4; 6:12; 8:25; 9:4,5).
John Cooper
guess who
Matushka7 wrote:
>
> Know what I find funny? The genealogy contgroversy must have been sitrring
> problems up even back then, because in Titus Paul urged his fellow apostates to
> "avoid foolish questions and genealogies".
>
> Some first century damage control, I suppose. :) I got a good laugh when I saw
> that.
the vast majority of discussions in this forum are repeats of first and
second century debates.
--
************************************
"There ought to be limits to Freedom."
George W. Bush
************************************
Malachi Z. Goodman
agree, their testimony is considered invalid by Torah law.
The NT also insists that Joseph is not Yeshu's father, so his lineage is
irrelevant.
So Yeshu is not a descendant of David.
John Cooper <bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8l4r9i$r9f$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Malachi Z. Goodman
>
> Could he have been Mashiach ben Yosef? Theoretically speaking, of
> course.
No. If his father is not a son descendant of David, he is not Moshiakh ben
anything.
Malachi Z. Goodman
> >Since we have contradictions in
> >his genealogies, we must dismiss them according to Torah law.
>
Yes, it is.
Malachi Z. Goodman
> > For the NT's, Jesus's garbled and uncertain parentage makes claims
> > dependent upon his genealogy suspect.
>
> His parentage isn't uncertain. His mother was Mary, His father was
> Joseph, and He was born of a virgin.
If he's born of a virgin, then his father isn't Joseph, and Yeshu is not a
descendant of David.
Therefore not Moshiakh.
Case closed.
Malachi
Arthur Salzberg
> Arthur Salzberg <art...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I happen to agree with what many NT scholars have concluded about the
> > Jesus genealogies in Lk and Mt: they are myths, no better than fairy
> > tales, likely concoted to answer Jewish claims that Jesus was the
product
> > of an illicit affair with a Roman soldier.
>
> Of course you happen to agree. So what? Scholars have been known to
> not agree on anything. They've also been known to be wrong on
> occassion.
It really doesn't take much to see that the called "genealogies" of Jesus in
MT and LK are fictitious.
Jews have known from the beginning that they are false, as has been pointed
out to you on this board dozens of times.
It is only in recent times that Jewish voices have been joined by growing
chorus of Christian scholars.
What I find bizarre is how some can invent fictional backgrounds for their
gods based upon Jewish information known to the Jewish people, then blame
Jews for rejecting a false presentation.
> > Even early church father Eusebius writes "each of the faiful has been
> > zealous in making guesses on these passages."
>
> There are passages in Tanakh about which one could say the same for the
> Rabbis. So what?
Not *one* is such a glaring, criticial, obvious fabrication.
And your reply misses the point.
No one is here missionizing Judaism or the truth of the Hebrew Bible to you.
Personally, I don't care if you accept Judaism or the Hebrew Bible, or
believe it all to be pile of rubbish.
The Christian borg-like need to have everyone else think and believe exactly
like them is one of the true great heresies of Christian tradition, no doubt
born out of insecurity and a misunderstanding of the heritage of its tribal
parent, which, by the wya, has long since evolved beyong such trivialities.
There are many paths that lead to the summit of the one and same mountain;
the differences are more pronounced the lower down the mountain one finds
onself, but those vanish at the peak.
Those who concentrate on critizing how others are climbing risk loosing
their own way to the top.
Tearing down Judasim hardly bolster's your claim that Christainity alone
holds all truths.
To some extent "Fred" suffers from the same myopic view: when confronted
with some obvious Christian gaff, like the fabricated out of whole cloth
geneologies of LK and MT, you answer, nah nah nah, Judaism and the Rabbis
have similar problems. Even if true, how does that advance your cause?
And since it is Christians who claim "my way or you fry", flaws, gaffes,
distortions etc of classic Christianity are fair game.
The Catholic Church, after 2000 years, finally does get it, in that they
have renounced the type of missionizing targeting Jews that has generated so
much animosity.
> > Christians who post here in support of the accuracy of these
genealogical
> > fantasies do themselves a disservice, and ought to move on to more
> > important things.
>
> Like what? Nothing is more important than the person and work of Jesus.
Then how about following some of his teachings or life example, which seem
to indicate far more tolerance and an "open table" than any of
self-authenticating Christians who boast about their faith here.
> > > If not, why not?
> >
> > I am not aware of any tenent or faith of the Jewish people dependent
upon
> > an accurate genealogy in the Hebrew, unlike the Christian claims to
Jesus'
> > messiahship based upon his Jewish descent form David.
>
> Really? So it wouldn't matter to you if you were descended, say, from
> Esau? Or if your priests (if and when the temple is rebuilt) aren't
> descended from Levi?
No, it doens't matter a wit to me, and besides, it is no concern of yours.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Whether that error is signicifant turns of what claims are being
made
> > > > based upon the genealogy.
> > > >
> > > > For the NT's, Jesus's garbled and uncertain parentage makes claims
> > > > dependent upon his genealogy suspect.
> > >
> > > His parentage isn't uncertain. His mother was Mary, His father was
> > > Joseph, and He was born of a virgin.
>
> > Your interpolation skirting the plaint text of the NT is of no help,
>
> What exactly have I "skirted"? Please be specific.
Among other things, the text nowhere says that Joseph was Jesus' father.
> > or I suppose you have your own special understanding of what "virgin"
and
> > "father" mean.
>
> Nope. "Virgin" means "not having had intercourse", "father" means "male
> parent of a child" whether that child is conceived in the normal way, is
> adopted, or happens to be the result of a miracle. Jewish scripture
> refers to God as "father". Do you have a special understanding of that?
No, but you apparently do not know the difference between allegory, metaphor
and reality, and appear to be weak in elementary biology.
Given Jesus' bent to speak in parables and make such heavy use of allegory
and metaphor, it is no wonder that folks like you don't understand him.
[snip]
> > the NT story is only an attempt to claim that Jesus wsa a remarkable
> > person-- the "virgin" mother story, his genealogy etc are nothing more
> > than the fertile imagination of early believers.
>
> Unless, of course, it happens to be true.
That is your faith, not mine.
> > Maybe if and when Christians finally set Jesus free from the myths they
> > have entombed him in, there can be a return of all the world to the
> > worship of the One God and obediance to His Holy Torah.
>
> Jesus said that the one who rejects Him rejects "the One God".
Your interpretation of what Jesus's may or may not have said is one of your
problems.
If Jesus really called others to worship him rather than the One God, then
he is rightly rejected by the Jewish people, and indeed, ought to be
rejected by all men who claim to adhere to the faith of Abraham.
I don't believe he said that.
If, as is far more likely, Jesus never said that, but said something like
what Shmuel Playfair has pointed out incessantly--that the way to God is
through his teachings which include Torah obedience-- then he is correct
that those who reject God's Torah reject God.
The faith *of * Jesus binds, faith *in* Jesus tears apart.
> >
> > > > Since Christianity has claimed for 2000 years that Jesus is the
Jewish
> > > > messiah based upon a flawed geneology, that appears to be major
flaw.
> > >
> > > No, the genealogy is only one small part of the claim. The major
claim
> > > is His resurrection from the dead.
That may be your faith, but it is not the faith of Abraham.
Many Christians disagree with your stilted, narrow sectarian views.
Here are two of the more articulate who offer a Christian's a faith released
from such myths:
"Putting Away Childish Things: The Virgin Birth, the Empty Tomb and Other
Fairy Tales You Don't Need to Believe to Have a Living Faith" by Uta
Ranke-Heinemann, HarperSanFrancisco, 1994, ISBN -0-6-066860 andN
"Honest to Jesus", Robert Funk, HarperSanFranciso, 1996, ISBN 0-06-06275
[snip]
Best of luck on your continuing studies.
Arthur Salzberg
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:28:58 GMT, bat...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >The problem with this is very simple. It isn't foretold in the OT.
> >the Messiah, he will die and then return to life three days afterward."
>
> Messiah. There is no Messianic prophecy that says "By thus shall you
> recognize the Messiah, he will regather the exiles" or "By thus shall
> you recognize the Messiah, he will rebuild the Temple" or "By thus
> shall you recognize the Messiah, he will be a great Torah scholar" or
> "By thus shall you recognize the Messiah, he will bring knowledge of
> G-d to the whole world" or "By thus shall you recognize the Messiah,
> he will bring world peace."
>
> In fact, I challenge you to find any verse that says "By thus shall
> you recognize the Messiah, he will do...". You can't, because it
> doesn't exist in Tana"kh.
Of course no such phrase exists, and that is precisely the Christian fallacy
about messianic claims made for Jesus.
The Hebrew Bible, unlike every self appointed Christian missionary who has
ever posted in this newsgroup, *never* speaks about believing in the
Messiah, nor is "recognizing him" an issue of any importance whatsoever.
The *existence* of the real Messiah will require no special faith or special
recognition.
That is precisely the point on how we know Jesus --so far-- fails as the
Jewish messiah. Claims made on his behalf are no different that those made
for Bar Kochba or Shabbtai Tzvi.
Special faith would be required to believe or recognize any of these
individuals as The Messiah since each failed to accomplish the messianic
promises.
For the real Messiah, on the other hand, his presence and fulfillment of the
prophecies will be manifest and obvious IN THIS WORLD as a clear real
history reality. The fulfillment of the prophecies will expose his
existence.
BTW, surely you have learned by now from Moshe Shulman, Miriam Wolf,
Shoshani--if you have troubled yourself to actually read any of their posts,
(or posts from others of the Jewish persuasion), the word "Moshiach" never
appears in the Hebrew Bible in reference to an anointed person who will come
in the future.
But Bible is filled with references to a future age of perfection-- or
"messianic times."
You have seen those passages, including Isaiah 2:1-4.
And many of those passages, including Isaiah 11:1-9, mention a descendant of
David who will rule Israel during the messianic times.
Since all kings are "anointed", and therefore "a messiah", this person is
known as The Messiah.
There is no burning need or even desire amongst Jews to identify who this
Messiah will be; his *accomplishments* will do that for him.
Bob Felts
> "Bob Felts" <wr...@stablecross.com> wrote in message
> news:1ee2l6j.v7h4ok1g7jg30N%wr...@stablecross.com...
> > Arthur Salzberg <art...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I happen to agree with what many NT scholars have concluded about the
> > > Jesus genealogies in Lk and Mt: they are myths, no better than fairy
> > > tales, likely concoted to answer Jewish claims that Jesus was the
> > > product of an illicit affair with a Roman soldier.
> >
> > Of course you happen to agree. So what? Scholars have been known to
> > not agree on anything. They've also been known to be wrong on
> > occassion.
>
> It really doesn't take much to see that the called "genealogies" of Jesus
> in MT and LK are fictitious.
So give the precise reasons why you think so.
>
> Jews have known from the beginning that they are false, as has been pointed
> out to you on this board dozens of times.
No, you have claimed that they are false, but you have not shown it.
Frankly, your claims are far more suspect that Jesus' genealogies.
>
> It is only in recent times that Jewish voices have been joined by growing
> chorus of Christian scholars.
For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound
doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves
teachers to suit their own desires, and will turn away from listening
to the truth and wander away to myths.
>
> What I find bizarre is how some can invent fictional backgrounds for their
> gods based upon Jewish information known to the Jewish people, then blame
> Jews for rejecting a false presentation.
Fine. Tell us what is false.
>
>
> > > Even early church father Eusebius writes "each of the faiful has been
> > > zealous in making guesses on these passages."
> >
> > There are passages in Tanakh about which one could say the same for the
> > Rabbis. So what?
>
> Not *one* is such a glaring, criticial, obvious fabrication.
So far, all you've done is make unsupported claims.
>
> And your reply misses the point.
>
> No one is here missionizing Judaism or the truth of the Hebrew Bible to
> you.
Based upon what the Hebrew Bible says, don't you think that you should?
Or do you ignore the truth of the Hebrew Bible as readily as you ignore
the truth of the Christian Scriptures?
>
> Personally, I don't care if you accept Judaism or the Hebrew Bible, or
> believe it all to be pile of rubbish.
So you don't, in fact, care about what the Hebrew Bible says, either.
>
> The Christian borg-like need to have everyone else think and believe
> exactly like them is one of the true great heresies of Christian
> tradition, no doubt born out of insecurity and a misunderstanding of the
> heritage of its tribal parent, which, by the wya, has long since evolved
> beyong such trivialities.
Emotional content: high. Semantic content: zero.
>
> There are many paths that lead to the summit of the one and same mountain;
> the differences are more pronounced the lower down the mountain one finds
> onself, but those vanish at the peak.
Proof? Especially since your own Scriptures say the exact opposite.
But, of course, you don't care about what your own Scriptures say, do
you? You've "evolved" beyond such trivialities.
>
> Those who concentrate on critizing how others are climbing risk loosing
> their own way to the top.
You _can't_ climb to the top. No one can. That's the point that you so
sorely miss.
>
> Tearing down Judasim hardly bolster's your claim that Christainity alone
> holds all truths.
The only thing that I aim to "tear down" are your distortions and false
claims about Christianity. You have claimed that the genealogies of
Jesus are false. Now prove it, or shut up.
>
> To some extent "Fred" suffers from the same myopic view: when confronted
> with some obvious Christian gaff, like the fabricated out of whole cloth
> geneologies of LK and MT, you answer, nah nah nah, Judaism and the Rabbis
> have similar problems. Even if true, how does that advance your cause?
Because, so far, the only reason that even remotely supports your claim
that the genealogies are in error is because they contain omissions.
But, as Fred has correctly pointed out, and which you seem unable to
grasp, if that an omission is an error, then genealogies in the Jewish
scriptures are in error. But, you seem to have a double standard in
that omissions in some genealogies are ok, but in others they are not.
>
> And since it is Christians who claim "my way or you fry", flaws, gaffes,
> distortions etc of classic Christianity are fair game.
I agree. But, so far, all I see from you is a lot of hand-waving and
misdirection.
>
> The Catholic Church, after 2000 years, finally does get it, in that they
> have renounced the type of missionizing targeting Jews that has generated
> so much animosity.
But they haven't renounced missionizing of Jews. Catholics still hold
to the "Great Commission" in Matthew 28:19. Catholics haven't removed
Romans 1:16 from their Bibles.
>
>
> > > Christians who post here in support of the accuracy of these
> > > genealogical fantasies do themselves a disservice, and ought to move
> > > on to more important things.
> >
> > Like what? Nothing is more important than the person and work of Jesus.
>
> Then how about following some of his teachings or life example, which seem
> to indicate far more tolerance and an "open table" than any of
> self-authenticating Christians who boast about their faith here.
Show me where Jesus supports "far more tolerance and an 'open table'"
and I'll listen. I'm particularly interested in your effort, especially
since Jesus actually said, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate
is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are
many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads
to life, and there are few who find it."
>
> > > > If not, why not?
> > >
> > > I am not aware of any tenent or faith of the Jewish people dependent
> > > upon an accurate genealogy in the Hebrew, unlike the Christian claims
> > > to Jesus' messiahship based upon his Jewish descent form David.
> >
> > Really? So it wouldn't matter to you if you were descended, say, from
> > Esau? Or if your priests (if and when the temple is rebuilt) aren't
> > descended from Levi?
>
> No, it doens't matter a wit to me, and besides, it is no concern of yours.
So you further establish that you really don't care what the Hebrew
Bible says. Why am I not surprised?
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Whether that error is signicifant turns of what claims are being
> > > > > made based upon the genealogy.
> > > > >
> > > > > For the NT's, Jesus's garbled and uncertain parentage makes claims
> > > > > dependent upon his genealogy suspect.
> > > >
> > > > His parentage isn't uncertain. His mother was Mary, His father was
> > > > Joseph, and He was born of a virgin.
> >
> > > Your interpolation skirting the plaint text of the NT is of no help,
> >
> > What exactly have I "skirted"? Please be specific.
>
> Among other things, the text nowhere says that Joseph was Jesus' father.
Well, duh. The text specifically states that Jesus' conception was
miraculous.
>
> > > or I suppose you have your own special understanding of what "virgin"
> > > and "father" mean.
> >
> > Nope. "Virgin" means "not having had intercourse", "father" means "male
> > parent of a child" whether that child is conceived in the normal way, is
> > adopted, or happens to be the result of a miracle. Jewish scripture
> > refers to God as "father". Do you have a special understanding of that?
>
> No, but you apparently do not know the difference between allegory,
> metaphor and reality, and appear to be weak in elementary biology.
Oh, cut to the quick I am. You really do enjoy piling false claims on
top of false claims, don't you?
>
> Given Jesus' bent to speak in parables and make such heavy use of allegory
> and metaphor, it is no wonder that folks like you don't understand him.
This is something that can be empirically tested. Which we can do, if
you'll provide support for your "open table" claim made earlier.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > the NT story is only an attempt to claim that Jesus wsa a remarkable
> > > person-- the "virgin" mother story, his genealogy etc are nothing more
> > > than the fertile imagination of early believers.
> >
> > Unless, of course, it happens to be true.
>
> That is your faith, not mine.
Indeed. But you cannot exclude something from consideration simply
because you don't happen to believe it. Why, there are scholars who say
that the Exodus never happened. But that doesn't preclude the
possibility that it did happen the way it was recorded, now does it?
>
> > > Maybe if and when Christians finally set Jesus free from the myths they
> > > have entombed him in, there can be a return of all the world to the
> > > worship of the One God and obediance to His Holy Torah.
> >
> > Jesus said that the one who rejects Him rejects "the One God".
>
> Your interpretation of what Jesus's may or may not have said is one of your
> problems.
It is likewise yours.
>
> If Jesus really called others to worship him rather than the One God, then
> he is rightly rejected by the Jewish people, and indeed, ought to be
> rejected by all men who claim to adhere to the faith of Abraham.
Unless, of course, He really is who he claimed to be. There is this
matter of the DoT with which you have to contend.
>
> I don't believe he said that.
Then why set up a straw man?
>
> If, as is far more likely, Jesus never said that, but said something like
> what Shmuel Playfair has pointed out incessantly--that the way to God is
> through his teachings which include Torah obedience-- then he is correct
> that those who reject God's Torah reject God.
Jesus _is_ God's Torah. That is, and has been, the classic Christian
position. "... and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us". That is
why Jesus said that to reject Him was to reject Torah.
>
> The faith *of * Jesus binds, faith *in* Jesus tears apart.
As Jesus said that it would.
>
> > >
> > > > > Since Christianity has claimed for 2000 years that Jesus is the
> > > > > Jewish messiah based upon a flawed geneology, that appears to be
> > > > > major flaw.
> > > >
> > > > No, the genealogy is only one small part of the claim. The major
> > > > claim is His resurrection from the dead.
>
> That may be your faith, but it is not the faith of Abraham.
According to Jesus, "Your ancestor Abraham rejoiced that he would see my
day; he saw it and was glad."
>
> Many Christians disagree with your stilted, narrow sectarian views.
I can find just as many who agree with me (actually, more). But so
what? When has truth ever been determined by numbers?
>
> Here are two of the more articulate who offer a Christian's a faith
> released from such myths:
>
> "Putting Away Childish Things: The Virgin Birth, the Empty Tomb and Other
> Fairy Tales You Don't Need to Believe to Have a Living Faith" by Uta
> Ranke-Heinemann, HarperSanFrancisco, 1994, ISBN -0-6-066860 andN
>
> "Honest to Jesus", Robert Funk, HarperSanFranciso, 1996, ISBN 0-06-06275
>
If it denies the virgin birth and the empty tomb, then it ain't
Christian.
Bob Felts
> > > For the NT's, Jesus's garbled and uncertain parentage makes claims
> > > dependent upon his genealogy suspect.
> >
> > His parentage isn't uncertain. His mother was Mary, His father was
> > Joseph, and He was born of a virgin.
>
> If he's born of a virgin, then his father isn't Joseph, and Yeshu is not a
> descendant of David.
Really? Whose DNA did God use to turn Mary's gamete into a zygote?
> Therefore not Moshiakh.
>
> Case closed.
>
Not until you answer the above question.
Alan Ganapol
>
> >There are also some omissions from the genealogy, and also the one in Luke.
>
> IIRC, there are genealogies with omissions in Tana"kh as well.
>
This may very well be... HOWEVER... the purpose of the geneologies of Matthew and
Luke are to give legitimacy to the Messiahship of Jesus given the need to find the
blood of King David through King Solomon running in the Moshiach's veins...
The NT genealogies are critical... they are however, severely flawed thereby
rendering Jesus as the Jewish messiah as being an error... at best.
Alan Ganapol
Bob Felts
Replying to myself:
[...]
> The first explanation is the correct one. Since you referenced John
> 10:13, you might want to look at Luke 24:26-47; Acts 3:17-18 (not
That should be . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . note
> particularly the first part, "I know that you acted in ignorance, as did
> also your rulers", and Acts 17:2-3.
>
__|_____
Arthur Salzberg
> Arthur Salzberg <art...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > "Bob Felts" <wr...@stablecross.com> wrote in message
> > news:1ee2l6j.v7h4ok1g7jg30N%wr...@stablecross.com...
> > > Arthur Salzberg <art...@msn.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I happen to agree with what many NT scholars have concluded about
the
> > > > Jesus genealogies in Lk and Mt: they are myths, no better than
fairy
> > > > tales, likely concoted to answer Jewish claims that Jesus was the
> > > > product of an illicit affair with a Roman soldier.
> > >
> > > Of course you happen to agree. So what? Scholars have been known to
> > > not agree on anything. They've also been known to be wrong on
> > > occassion.
> >
> > It really doesn't take much to see that the called "genealogies" of
Jesus
> > in MT and LK are fictitious.
>
> So give the precise reasons why you think so.
How tiresome!
For starters, we don't know who Jesus' biological father is.
According to both Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born of a virgin.
This claim makes it impossible for Christians to insist that Jesus was the
Messiah exepcted by the Jews, because tribal lineage is traced only through
a person's biological father.
Tribal lineage is clearly stated in Numbers 1:18.
According to Christian teachings, Jesus had only a human Jewish mother, not
a human Jewish father.
A human Jewish father would be essential for anyone to be a legitimate heir
to the throne of David, which the real messiah will be.
As for the numerous contradictions between MT and LK, they have reprised
over and over again. For example, in MT genealogy, Joseph's father is
Jacob, in Luke's genealogy it is Heli.
> > Jews have known from the beginning that they are false, as has been
pointed
> > out to you on this board dozens of times.
>
> No, you have claimed that they are false, but you have not shown it.
> Frankly, your claims are far more suspect that Jesus' genealogies.
Sorry, but the infancy narratives in MT and LK have no more or less reality
than tales Robin Hood and Sherriff of Notingham.
You may choose to believe them: Jews don't.
> > It is only in recent times that Jewish voices have been joined by
growing
> > chorus of Christian scholars.
>
> For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound
> doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves
> teachers to suit their own desires, and will turn away from listening
> to the truth and wander away to myths.
Huh?
> >
> > What I find bizarre is how some can invent fictional backgrounds for
their
> > gods based upon Jewish information known to the Jewish people, then
blame
> > Jews for rejecting a false presentation.
>
> Fine. Tell us what is false.
See above
And when I write:
Even early church father Eusebius writes "each of the faiful has been
zealous in making guesses on these passages" (reflecting on the
inconsistencies of J's genealogy), you really have no satisfactory answer
other that to attack Judaism with
> > > There are passages in Tanakh about which one could say the same for
the
> > > Rabbis....
And when I reply that not *one* is such a glaring, criticial, obvious
fabrication, your answer
> So far, all you've done is make unsupported claims.
is similarly unsatisfactory. See above
> > And your reply misses the point.
> >
> > No one is here missionizing Judaism or the truth of the Hebrew Bible to
> > you.
>
> Based upon what the Hebrew Bible says, don't you think that you should?
No.
> Or do you ignore the truth of the Hebrew Bible as readily as you ignore
> the truth of the Christian Scriptures?
The Hebrew Bible alone is wholly sufficient for all matters of faith and
doctrine.
The Christian Scriptures bear the same respect as the Koran, the Book or
Mormon or sacred writings of other religions; they make interesting (or in
the case of the NT, disturbing) reading, but they aren't my tradition.
> >
> > Personally, I don't care if you accept Judaism or the Hebrew Bible, or
> > believe it all to be pile of rubbish.
>
> So you don't, in fact, care about what the Hebrew Bible says, either.
No, and your condescending attitude is annoying.
> >
> > The Christian borg-like need to have everyone else think and believe
> > exactly like them is one of the true great heresies of Christian
> > tradition, no doubt born out of insecurity and a misunderstanding of the
> > heritage of its tribal parent, which, by the wya, has long since evolved
> > beyong such trivialities.
>
> Emotional content: high. Semantic content: zero.
Aside from the obvious typo, I think it expresses a deeper truth than you
care to face.
> >
> > There are many paths that lead to the summit of the one and same
mountain;
> > the differences are more pronounced the lower down the mountain one
finds
> > onself, but those vanish at the peak.
> Proof? Especially since your own Scriptures say the exact opposite.
No they don't.
I have had this conversation with Ed Form before.
People have used the Bible to support all kinds of nonsense, from witch
burnings to enslaving black men.
Ed Form, following a classic and unfortuante Christian tradition, routinely
turns the Hebrew Bible against the Jewish people; perhaps you grimly agree
him.
Christian proof texting (like much of what I see on your public website)
misses the broader sweep and deeper truths contained in the Hebrew Bible.
No rational person could read the Hebrew Bible in its entirety and come away
from it with the view that the Jewish people have been cursed by God for
their unbelief in the Gentile's Christ or for that matter that the whole
world has to believe exactly like the Jewish people do.
Clearly, the Hebrew Bible is a living document which speaks to each
generation, but it needs to be interepreted correctly.
I find my people's interpretation sufficient, and reject yours.
> But, of course, you don't care about what your own Scriptures say, do
> you? You've "evolved" beyond such trivialities
Your condescending attitude grows still more annoying, and remarks like that
indicate you just aren't listening or comprehending what I am writing.
> > Those who concentrate on critizing how others are climbing risk loosing
> > their own way to the top.
>
> You _can't_ climb to the top. No one can. That's the point that you so
> sorely miss.
That's your opinion, no doubt based upon Paul's misunderstanding of the fall
of Adam.
I don't share that view.
>
> > Tearing down Judasim hardly bolster's your claim that Christainity alone
> > holds all truths.
>
> The only thing that I aim to "tear down" are your distortions and false
> claims about Christianity. You have claimed that the genealogies of
> Jesus are false. Now prove it, or shut up.
My, your are a nasty little sucker. I am tired of your comments.
Converation ended.
[snip]
Alan Ganapol
> Arthur Salzberg <art...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > "Bob Felts" <wr...@stablecross.com> wrote in message
>
> No, you have claimed that they are false, but you have not shown it.
> Frankly, your claims are far more suspect that Jesus' genealogies.
>
>
I guess we've finally heard it... Bob admits that Jesus' genealogies are indeed
suspect... "more suspect" suggests a degree of "suspect" and therefore being
like a little bit pregnant.
Alan Ganapol
IO
> > > On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:05:00 GMT, "Malachi Z. Goodman"
> > > <mal...@torahscroll.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> IIRC, there are genealogies with omissions
> > > >> in Tana"kh as well.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Really? If genealogies have omissions in works
> > > you acknowledge as authoritative, that means
> > > they aren't a disqualifying feature for the
> > > work.
> >
> > That is not very clear thinking -- an erroneous
> > genealogy means the genealogy contains an error.
>
> Excuse me for butting in, but you are the one who
> isn't thinking clearly. If a genealogy is erroneous
> because it contains an omission, then genealogies
> in Tanakh are likewise erroneous. Do you recogonize
> the genealogies in Tanakh which contains omissions
I'm curious if *anyone* in this newsgroup can
list and provide proof of his genealogy back to
the time of King David. Without it, your so
called Jewishness is just an empty unsubstianted
claim and erroneous.
Bob Felts
> "Bob Felts" <wr...@stablecross.com> wrote in message
> news:1ee45d4.1xidxk98acmkgN%wr...@stablecross.com...
> > Arthur Salzberg <art...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Bob Felts" <wr...@stablecross.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1ee2l6j.v7h4ok1g7jg30N%wr...@stablecross.com...
> > > > Arthur Salzberg <art...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I happen to agree with what many NT scholars have concluded about
> > > > > the Jesus genealogies in Lk and Mt: they are myths, no better
> > > > > than fairy tales, likely concoted to answer Jewish claims that
> > > > > Jesus was the product of an illicit affair with a Roman soldier.
> > > >
> > > > Of course you happen to agree. So what? Scholars have been known
> > > > to not agree on anything. They've also been known to be wrong on
> > > > occassion.
> > >
> > > It really doesn't take much to see that the called "genealogies" of
> > > Jesus in MT and LK are fictitious.
> >
> > So give the precise reasons why you think so.
>
> How tiresome!
Indeed. These are the same tired, stale, and wrong objections that I've
heard ad nauseum.
>
> For starters, we don't know who Jesus' biological father is.
>
> According to both Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born of a virgin.
>
> This claim makes it impossible for Christians to insist that Jesus was the
> Messiah exepcted by the Jews, because tribal lineage is traced only through
> a person's biological father.
Not at all. As I asked in another thread, whose DNA did God use when He
caused Mary to conceive?
>
> Tribal lineage is clearly stated in Numbers 1:18.
>
> According to Christian teachings, Jesus had only a human Jewish mother, not
> a human Jewish father.
>
> A human Jewish father would be essential for anyone to be a legitimate heir
> to the throne of David, which the real messiah will be.
Why? DNA is DNA, regardless of whether it comes through normal
intercourse, artifical insemination, or miraculous conception.
>
> As for the numerous contradictions between MT and LK, they have reprised
> over and over again. For example, in MT genealogy, Joseph's father is
> Jacob, in Luke's genealogy it is Heli.
And these objections have been dealt with, over and over and over again.
I've appended one such article to the end of this post.
>
>
>
> > > Jews have known from the beginning that they are false, as has been
> > > pointed out to you on this board dozens of times.
> >
> > No, you have claimed that they are false, but you have not shown it.
> > Frankly, your claims are far more suspect that Jesus' genealogies.
>
> Sorry, but the infancy narratives in MT and LK have no more or less reality
> than tales Robin Hood and Sherriff of Notingham.
>
> You may choose to believe them: Jews don't.
Well, duh. The question remains, however, whether you disbelieve them
for good or bad reasons. That's why I'm asking you for your reasons and
examining them to see whether or not they stand up.
[...]
>
> And when I write:
>
> Even early church father Eusebius writes "each of the faiful has been
> zealous in making guesses on these passages" (reflecting on the
> inconsistencies of J's genealogy), you really have no satisfactory answer
> other that to attack Judaism with
>
> > > > There are passages in Tanakh about which one could say the same for
> > > > the Rabbis....
>
It wasn't an attack on Judaism. I was simply showing you that a puzzle
doesn't necessarily disqualify something.
> And when I reply that not *one* is such a glaring, criticial, obvious
> fabrication, your answer
>
> > So far, all you've done is make unsupported claims.
>
> is similarly unsatisfactory. See above.
It's hardly unsatisfactory. The main reason you have so far offered as
proof that Jesus' genealogies are a fabrication doesn't stand up to
critical analysis.
>
> > > And your reply misses the point.
> > >
> > > No one is here missionizing Judaism or the truth of the Hebrew Bible to
> > > you.
> >
> > Based upon what the Hebrew Bible says, don't you think that you should?
>
> No.
So, when it says "my house shall be called a house of prayer for all
peoples", that has no bearing on the issue?
[...]
>
> > >
> > > The Christian borg-like need to have everyone else think and believe
> > > exactly like them is one of the true great heresies of Christian
> > > tradition, no doubt born out of insecurity and a misunderstanding of
> > > the heritage of its tribal parent, which, by the wya, has long since
> > > evolved beyong such trivialities.
> >
> > Emotional content: high. Semantic content: zero.
>
> Aside from the obvious typo, I think it expresses a deeper truth than you
> care to face.
Talk about a condescending attitude... You have no warrant for deciding
what I care, or do not care, to face. Why don't you tell us what your
"deeper truth" is and we'll see if I care to face it or not.
>
> > >
> > > There are many paths that lead to the summit of the one and same
> > > mountain; the differences are more pronounced the lower down the
> > > mountain one finds onself, but those vanish at the peak.
> > Proof? Especially since your own Scriptures say the exact opposite.
>
> No they don't.
Then, if you like, we can continue this in another thread. I'd
certainly be interested in seeing you try to prove, from the Hebrew
Scriptures, that "most roads lead to God".
[...]
> >
> > > Tearing down Judasim hardly bolster's your claim that Christainity
> > > alone holds all truths.
> >
> > The only thing that I aim to "tear down" are your distortions and false
> > claims about Christianity. You have claimed that the genealogies of
> > Jesus are false. Now prove it, or shut up.
>
> My, your are a nasty little sucker. I am tired of your comments.
> Converation ended.
>
In order words, you have no proof.
I thought so.
-------------------------
The Genealogies in Matthew and Luke
Matt. 1:1-17; Luke 3:23b-38
Both Matthew and Luke give a genealogical list for the descent of
Jesus. When these are compared, differences and difficulties appear
immediately. The most obvious difference is that Matthew's list
begins with Abraham and descends to Jesus, whereas Luke's list
begins with Jesus and ascends to Adam, the son of God. This in
itself presents no difficulty; but when comparing, it is quite
another matter. Of course only Luke gives the generations from
Adam to Abraham, and the lists of progenitors between Abraham
and David as given by Matthew and Luke are nearly identical. No
problem comes until we compare the two versions of the succession
from David to Jesus:
Matthew's list Luke's list (in inverse order)
David David
Solomon Nathan
Rehoboam Mattatha
Abijah Menna
Asa Melea
Jehoshaphat Eliakim
Jehoram Jonam
Uzziah Joseph
Jotham Judah
Ahaz Simeon
Hezekiah Levi
Manasseh Matthat
Amon Jorim
Josiah Eliezer
Jeconiah Joshua
Shealtiel............ Er
Zerubbabel........ . Elmadam
Abiud . . Cosam
Eliakim . . Addi
Azor ? ? Melki
Zakok . . Neri
Akim . ............Shealtiel
Eliud ...............Zerubbabel
Eleazar Rhesa
Matthan Joanan
Jacob Joda
Joseph (husband of Mary) Josech
Jesus Semein
Mattathias
Maath
Naggai
Esli
Nahum
Amos
Mattathias
Joseph
Jannai
Melki
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph
Jesus ("the son, so it was
thought, of Joseph")
For students of a harmony of the gospels the above comparison
presents two problems; the difference in the number of generations
and the dissimilarity of names. How can the two genealogies be
harmonized without sacrificing the historical integrity of either?
Recent critical studies have generally regarded past attempts at
harmonization as just so much frustrated effort. Both H.C. Waetjen
and M.D. Johnson summarily dismiss past efforts to preserve full
historical authenticity as unconvincing, strained, and beside the
point. In any event, it is said, historicity will not effect
significantly the reader's existential response or understanding
of New Testament theology. Instead, each genealogy must be understood
individually and theologically in relation to the gospel in which
it appears and the thought of the evangelist that is intended to
express. The content and structure of each supposedly is arbitrary
to suit the evangelist's purpose. What those specific purposes were
need not occupy our attention here, for the analyses of scholars
such as Waetjen and Johnson follow the assumptions and methodology
of much recent New Testament critical scholarship. Their analyses
will be no better than their assumptions and methodology. And the
fundamental question of the historical reliability of the genealogies
cannot be bypassed in so a cavalier a fashion. Consequently we turn
our attention to the problems of harmonizing the two lists of Jesus'
ancestral descent.
The first problem, the difference in the number of generations, is
the easier to resolve. Although it is true that Matthew lists
twenty-six progenitors between David and Jesus, compared with Luke's
forty, two factors must be kept in mind. First, it is not uncommon
for the generations in one line of descent to increase more rapidly
than in another. Second, and more important, in Jewish thinking son
might mean "grandson," or, even more generally, "descendant" (as
"Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham," Matt. 1:1).
Similarly, begat (rendered by the patter "'X' [was] the father of
'Y'" in the New International Version, Matt. 1:2-16) does not
necessarily mean "was the actual (that is, immediate) father of"
but instead may simply indicate real descent. Just the fact that
Matthew casts his list in the form of three groups of fourteen
generations suggests this was a convenient though arbitrary
arrangement from which some generations may have been omitted. In
fact, it can be shown that Matthew's list has omissions (cf. 2
Kings 8:24; 1 Chron. 3:11; 2 Chron. 22:1,11; 24:27; 2 Kings 23:34;
24:6). Omission of generations in biblical genealogies is not
unique to this case, and Jews are known to have done it freely.
The purpose of a genealogy was not to account for every generation,
but to establish the fact of an undoubted succession, including
especially the more prominent ancestors.
The second problem is more difficult to resolve. In the two lists
of succession, between David and Joseph all the names are different
except Shealtiel and Zerabbabel (connected in the list by dotted
lines). How is this to be accounted for? Some exegetes unnecessarily
despair of finding an adequate solution or even suggest the lists
are in error. Others see them as redactional devices by which the
writers sought to fulfill their theological purposes in writing.
But among the attempts to harmonize the genealogies with each other,
four proposals deserve consideration.
1. Julius Africanus (d. A.D. 240) suggested that Matthew gives the
genealogy of Joseph through his actual father, Jacob, but Luke
gives Joseph's genealogy through his legal father, Heli. In this
view, Heli died childless. His half-brother, Jacob, who had the same
mother but a different father, married Heli's widow and by her had
Joseph. Known as levirate marriage, this action meant that physically
Joseph was the son of Jacob and legally the son of Heli. Jacob was
the descendant of David through David's son Solomon, and Heli was
the descendant of David through David's son Nathan. Thus, by both
legal and physical lineage Joseph had a rightful claim to the
Davidic throne and so would his legal (but not physical) son Jesus.
Matthew gives Joseph's physical lineage, Luke his legal lineage.
2. In his classic work, The Virgin Birth of Christ, J. Gresham Machen
argued for the view that Matthew gives the legal descent of Joseph
whereas for the most part (he does allow for levirate marriage or
transfer of lineage to a collateral line in Joseph's physical line),
Luke gives the physical descent. Although the physical and legal
lines are reversed, the purpose is still to establish Joseph's
rightful claim to the Davidic throne. This view holds that
Solomon's line failed in Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) (Jer. 22:30). But
when the kingly line through Solomon became extinct, the living
member of the collateral line of Nathan (Shealtiel, Matt. 1:23,
cf. Luke 3:27) inherited the title to the throne. Thus, Maechen
asserts, Matthew is tracing the legal heirship to the throne from
David, through Solomon, through Jeconiah, with transfer to a
collateral line at the point. Luke traces the physical descent
(with a possibility of jumps to a collateral line or levirate
marriages) to David through Nathan. Matthew starts with the
question, Who is the heir to David's throne? Luke starts with
the question, Who is Joseph's father?
A large number of scholars have preferred some form of this
view, including A. Hervey, Theodor Zahn, Vincent Taylor, and
Brooke F. Westcott.
3. A third view suggests that the apparent conflict between the
two genealogies of Joseph results from mistakenly assuming
Luke is intending to give Joseph's genealogy. Instead it should
be understood as Mary's genealogy. Joseph's name stands in for
Mary's by virtue of the fact that he had become son or heir of
Heli (Mary's father) by his marriage to her. This view holds
that Heli died with no sons, and that Mary became his heiress
(Num. 27:1-11; 36:1-12). The first of these passages seems to
provide for the preservation of the name of the man who dies
with daughters but no sons. In the case of Heli and his daughter,
Mary, this could have been accomplished by Joseph's becoming
identified with Mary's family. Joseph would be included in
the family genealogy, although the genealogy is really Mary's.
Thus the genealogies of Matthew and Luke diverge from David
on because Matthew traces the Davidic descent of Joseph, and
Luke the Davidic descent of Mary (with Joseph's name standing in).
Each of the three proposals discussed thus far would resolve the
apparent conflict between the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. Each
also appears to be within the realm of reasonable possibility. It must
be pointed out that all three, however, rely upon conjecture that is
possible but far from certain. In the first two views one must appeal
to levirate marriages or collateral lines to resolve difficulties. The
third view rests on the conjecture that Joseph takes Mary's place in
the genealogy. In addition, the first must explain why Luke rather
than Matthew is interested in the legal lineage of Joseph. Both the
first and second views must explain why Luke, in light of his apparent
interest in and close association with Mary, would be concerned with
Joseph's genealogy at all. Interested as he was in Jesus's humanity,
birth, and childhood, why would Luke give the genealogy of the man who
was Jesus' legal but not physical father? These questions are not
unanswerable, but they do leave the field open for a view less
dependent on conjecture, one that does not raise these questions.
4. There is such a view. Like the third proposed solution, this
fourth view understands the genealogy in Luke really to be Mary's,
but for different reasons. Here Heli is understood to be the
progenitor of Mary, not of Joseph. Joseph is not properly part
of the genealogy, and is mentioned only parenthetically,
Luke 3:23 should then read "Jesus ... was the son (so it was
thought, of Joseph) of Heli." The support for this view is
impressive.
a. Placing the phrase "so it was thought, of Joseph" in
parentheses, and thus in effect removing it from the
genealogy, is grammatically justified. In the Greek text
Joseph's name occurs with the Greek definite article
prefixed; every other name in the series has the article.
By this device Joseph's name is shown to be not properly
a part of the genealogy. Jesus was only thought to be his
son. This would make Jesus the son (that is, grandson or
descendant) of Heli, Mary's progenitor, and is consistent
with Luke's account of Jesus' conception, which makes clear
that Joseph was not his physical father (Luke 1:26-39).
b. This view allows the most natural meaning of begat to stand.
In other words, begat refers to actual physical descent
rather than to jumps to collateral lines.
c. Matthew's interest in Jesus' relation to the Old Testament and
the Messianic kingdom makes it appropriate that he give Joseph's
really descent from David through Solomon - a descent that is
also Jesus' legal descent - and thus gives him legal claim to
the Davidic throne.
d. Because Luke emphasizes the humanity of Jesus, his solidarity
with the human race, and the universality of salvation, it is
fitting that Luke show his humanity by recording his human
descent through his human parent, Mary. His pedigree is then
traced back to Adam.
e. The objection that Mary's name is not in Luke's version needs
only the reply that women were rarely included in Jewish
genealogies; though giving her descent, Luke conforms to
custom by not mentioning her by name. The objection that Jews
never gave the genealogy of women is met by the answer that
this is a unique case; Luke is talking about a virgin birth.
How else could the physical descent of one who had no human
father be traced? Furthermore, Luke has already shown a
creative departure from customary genealogical lists by
starting with Jesus and ascending up the list of ancestors
rather than starting at some point in the past and descending
to Jesus.
f. This view allows easy resolution of the difficulties surrounding
Jeconiah (Matt. 1:11), Joseph's ancestor and David's descendant
through Solomon. In 2 Sam. 7:12-17 the perpetuity of the
Davidic Kingdom though Solomon (vv. 12-13) is unconditionally
promised. Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) later was the royal
representative of that line of descent for which eternal
perpetuity had been promised. Yet for his gross sin (2 Chron.
24:8-9), Jeconiah was to be recorded as if childless, and
no descendant of his would prosper on the Davidic throne
(Jer. 22:30). This poses a dilemma. It is Jeconiah through
whom the Solomonic descent and legal right to the throne
properly should be traced. Solomon's throne had already
been unconditionally promised eternal perpetuity. Yet Jeconiah
will have no physical descendants who will prosper on that
throne. How may both the divine promise and the curse be
fulfilled?
First, notice that Jeremiah's account neither indicates
Jeconiah would have no seed, nor does is say Jeconiah's line
has had its legal claim to the throne removed by his sin. The
legal claim to the throne remains with Jeconiah's line, and
Matthew records that descent down to Joseph. In 1:16, Matthew
preserves the virgin birth of Jesus and at the same time makes
clear that Jesus does not come under the curse upon Jeconiah.
He breaks the pattern and carefully avoids saying that Joseph
(a descendant of Jeconiah) begat Instead he refers to "Joseph,
the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus." In the
English translation the antecedent of "whom" is ambiguous.
But in the Greek text, "whom" is feminine singular in form
and can refer only to Mary who was not a descendant of
Jeconiah. As to human parentage, Jesus was born of Mary alone,
through Joseph his legal father. As Jesus' legal father,
Joseph's legal claim passed to Jesus. But because Jesus was
not actually Jeconiah's seed, although of actual Davidic
descent through Mary, descendant of Nathan, Jesus escaped
the curse on Jeconiah's seed pronounced in Jeremiah (22:30.
Thus the problem is resolved.
What we have then are two different genealogies of two people.
Probably even the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of Matthew and Luke are
different persons. This view does not depend on conjecture, rests
with evidence within the texts themselves, fits the purposes of the
evangelists, and easily resolves the problem surrounding Jeconiah.
Of this view L.M. Sweet appropriately wrote, "Its simplicity and
felicitous adjustment to the whole complex situation is precisely
its recommendation."
Although it is not, strictly speaking, a harmonistic problem, one
other difficulty of lesser significance found in Matthew's record
of Josephs's genealogy needs discussion here. In 1:17, Matthew
divides the generations from Abraham to Christ into three groups of
fourteen generations; from Abraham to David, from David to the
deportation of Babylon, and from the deportation to Christ. In part,
this was likely a device used by Matthew to aid memory; it does not
imply that he mentioned every progenitor. At least five names are
omitted: Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Jehoiakim, and Eliakim. As
previously stated, this procedure was not unusual and presents no
real problem.
With three groups of fourteen generations, however, one does expect
to find forty two different names. But there are only forty-one.
Although one set has only thirteen different names, the problem is
only apparent. Matthew does not speak of forty-two different names
but of three groups of fourteen generations, which he divides for
himself. David's name concludes the first set and stands first in
the second set (cf. 1:17). In other words, David is counted twice
and is thus given special prominence in the genealogy that shows
Jesus' Davidic throne rights through his legal father, Joseph.
Another means used for increasing the focus on David is the title
assigned to him in Matthew 1:6. He is called King David, and is
the only person in the genealogy to whom a title is given. Possibly
the Davidic emphasis is even further enhanced by the number 14.
The sum of the numerical value of the Hebrew letters in the name
David is 14. To the modern reader this might seem overly subtle,
but it was not necessarily so in ancient Semitic thought. The
numerical value of David's name, however, is not necessary to the
resolution of this problem. Again, alleged discrepancies between
and in the genealogical lists of Matthew and Luke are shown to be
more apparent than real. Reasonable solutions to the problems exist
and even throw further light on the text.
============
Johnson, Marshall D. The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies: With
Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus, 1969
pp. 139-256.
Machen, J. Gresham. The Virgin Birth of Christ, 1930.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, "The Genealogy
of Jesus Christ," L. M. Sweet.
Waetjen, Herman C. "The Genealogy as the Key to the Gospel according
to Matthew," Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976): 205-230.
--
Contributed by jlo...@netcom.com (Jim Loucks)
Bob Felts
> Bob Felts wrote:
>
> > Arthur Salzberg <art...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Bob Felts" <wr...@stablecross.com> wrote in message
> >
> > No, you have claimed that they are false, but you have not shown it.
> > Frankly, your claims are far more suspect that Jesus' genealogies.
> >
> >
>
> I guess we've finally heard it... Bob admits that Jesus' genealogies are
> indeed suspect... "more suspect" suggests a degree of "suspect" and
> therefore being like a little bit pregnant.
>
Not at all. I could equally say "such-and-so is far more suspect of
being a criminal than my wife", when my wife is under no such suspicion
at all.
Alan Ganapol
> Arthur Salzberg <art...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > "Bob Felts" <wr...@stablecross.com> wrote in message
> > news:1ee45d4.1xidxk98acmkgN%wr...@stablecross.com...
>
> Not at all. As I asked in another thread, whose DNA did God use when He
> caused Mary to conceive?
>
This makes the assumption that Jesus was real...
It is totally a matter of faith that he ever was... if you believe he was then
you can debate the nature of his DNA... if you don't think he was DNA is
irrelevent to the argument... I for one don't think he ever was...
Alan Ganapol
Alan Ganapol
> Alan Ganapol <agan...@computer.net> wrote:
>
> > Bob Felts wrote:
> >
> > > Arthur Salzberg <art...@msn.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Bob Felts" <wr...@stablecross.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > No, you have claimed that they are false, but you have not shown it.
> > > Frankly, your claims are far more suspect that Jesus' genealogies.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I guess we've finally heard it... Bob admits that Jesus' genealogies are
> > indeed suspect... "more suspect" suggests a degree of "suspect" and
> > therefore being like a little bit pregnant.
> >
>
> Not at all. I could equally say "such-and-so is far more suspect of
> being a criminal than my wife", when my wife is under no such suspicion
> at all.
>
I am parsing your words very carefully and your use of the phrase... " far
more suspect (than) Jesus' genealogies" does not limit the degree of
suspicion... just that there is some suspicion...
I know that was not your intent in the writing of the above... it's just the
way it reads... at least to me... and that I find very humorous.
Alan Ganapol
Bob Felts
> Bob Felts wrote:
>
> > Alan Ganapol <agan...@computer.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Bob Felts wrote:
> > >
> > > > Arthur Salzberg <art...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Bob Felts" <wr...@stablecross.com> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > No, you have claimed that they are false, but you have not shown it.
> > > > Frankly, your claims are far more suspect that Jesus' genealogies.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I guess we've finally heard it... Bob admits that Jesus' genealogies
> > > are indeed suspect... "more suspect" suggests a degree of "suspect"
> > > and therefore being like a little bit pregnant.
> > >
> >
> > Not at all. I could equally say "such-and-so is far more suspect of
> > being a criminal than my wife", when my wife is under no such suspicion
> > at all.
> >
>
> I am parsing your words very carefully and your use of the phrase... " far
> more suspect (than) Jesus' genealogies" does not limit the degree of
> suspicion... just that there is some suspicion...
Sigh... "Far more suspect" is true regardless of the amount of suspicion
of the comparing case, even when the amount of suspicion in the second
case is zero.
>
> I know that was not your intent in the writing of the above... it's just
> the way it reads... at least to me... and that I find very humorous.
>
Glad that I'm able to provide a little humor. ;-)
Bob Felts
> Bob Felts wrote:
>
> > Arthur Salzberg <art...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Bob Felts" <wr...@stablecross.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1ee45d4.1xidxk98acmkgN%wr...@stablecross.com...
> >
> > Not at all. As I asked in another thread, whose DNA did God use when He
> > caused Mary to conceive?
> >
>
> This makes the assumption that Jesus was real...
It also makes the assumption that I am real, some religions make the
assumption that God is real, Judaism assumes that Moses was real.
>
> It is totally a matter of faith that he ever was...
No, like Moses or the Peloponnesian wars, it is a matter of history.
> if you believe he was then you can debate the nature of his DNA... if you
> don't think he was DNA is irrelevent to the argument...
"You don't exist" may work for monsters lurking under the bed; but
you're on shaky ground when you say that about Jesus.
>I for one don't think he ever was...
So the Talmud is wrong when it talks about this character as if he
really existed?
Ed Form
regarding Re: The Genealogy of J---s Question:
> "John F. Nixon" wrote:
> >
> > >There are also some omissions from the genealogy, and also the one in
Luke.
> >
> > IIRC, there are genealogies with omissions in Tana"kh as well.
> >
> This may very well be... HOWEVER... the purpose of the geneologies of
Matthew and
> Luke are to give legitimacy to the Messiahship of Jesus given the need
to find the
> blood of King David through King Solomon running in the Moshiach's
veins...
There is no need whatever for Solomon's blood to be involved. The
standard Jewish arguemnts oin this matter are completel nonsense.
David's blood is all that matters.
> The NT genealogies are critical... they are however, severely flawed
thereby
> rendering Jesus as the Jewish messiah as being an error... at best.
There are no flaws in the genealogies, and certainly none that you can
prove.
Ed Form