.
The objections and replies below are FYI stuff. Keep them on file just in case
somebody should drive up and ask-- you'll be ready.
Objection #1. Nowhere in the Bible is a bloodline traced through a female.
According to Num 27:1-8 women become the natural default when there are
no men.
Objection #2. The messiah had to be in the bloodline of BOTH David and
Solomon (See 2 Samuel and 2 Chronicles). Luke traces the bloodline through
Nathan, but Nathan was never a king of Israel.
Though Nathan is Jesus' biological link to David; it remains true that only a
descendant of Solomon can inherit the throne. In Jesus' rather unusual
circumstances; Jacob's precedent was just the way to do it.
In the 48th chapter of Genesis, Jacob adopted his own two grandsons
Manasseh and Ephraim; thus instating them positionally equal to his
twelve original sons.
The adoption of his own grandsons had the effect of adding additional
children to Rachel's brood just as effectively as the children born of her maid
Bilhah-- Dan, and Naphtali. Jacob's motive for adopting Joseph's boys was in
sympathy for his deceased wife being cut off during her child bearing years,
which subsequently prevented her from having any more children of her own.
Ephraim and Manasseh bring Rachel's total up to six: two of her own, two by
her maid Bilhah, and two by Joseph's wife Asenath.
This obscure bit of patriarchal prerogative has managed to evade the notice
of modern Jewry as evidenced by their stubborn rejection of Christ as a valid
candidate for David's throne on the basis that the boy didn't descend from
Solomon biologically. By demanding a strictly biological connection to
Solomon, they have effectively locked themselves into perpetual error; and
have impudently, and shamefully, taken it upon themselves to overrule
Jacob's precedent.
Now, fast-forward to the New Testament where the angel of The Lord spoke
to Joseph in a dream and ordered him to share the blame for Mary's out-of-
wedlock pregnancy by taking part in naming the child.
†. Matt 1:21 . . She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the
name Jesus
A child's name in those days wasn't chipped into stone until its biological
father gave his consent. For example; John the Baptist's dad Zacharias was
ordered to give his impending child the name of John.
†. Luke 1:13-14 . .The angel said to him: your wife Elizabeth will bear you a
son, and you shall call his name John.
And later on, "John" wasn't accepted until Zacharias gave his consent.
†. Luke 1:59-63 . . So it was, on the eighth day, that they came to
circumcise the child; and they would have called him by the name of his
father, Zacharias. His mother answered and said: No; he shall be called
John. But they said to her: There is no one among your relatives who is
called by this name. So they made signs to his father-- what he would have
him called. And he asked for a writing tablet, and wrote, saying: His name is
John.
Thus, by participating in the naming of Mary's baby, Joseph as much as
declared he was its biological father.
†. Luke 4:22 . . Isn't this Joseph's son? they asked.
By law; he sure was. Joseph was a fraud, yes, and his reputation was ruined
to boot because by declaring he was the baby's biological father; he as much
as declared that he and its mother slept together out of wedlock. But what
was he to do when that was the way God wanted it? But you see; it was
necessary that Joseph follow Jacob's lead in order to place Mary's baby in
line for Solomon's throne-- it was the only way.
Objection #3. If Mary is the transmitter of the bloodline of David, she could
not give what she didn't possess-- a Y chromosome --so Jesus would have
been a women; if anything.
(chuckle) that is not only a very humorous argument against Jesus' gender;
but also very weak. Don't you see? If humanity's creator could manufacture
an entire human being utilizing nothing but lifeless dust; then how hard could
it possibly be for Him to manufacture a measly little Y chromosome from living
human tissue?
Buen Camino
/
The objections and replies below are FYI stuff. Keep them on file just in case
somebody should drive up and ask-- you'll be ready.
Objection #1. Nowhere in the Bible is a bloodline traced through a female.
According to Num 27:1-8 women become the natural default when there are
no men.
Objection #2. The messiah had to be in the bloodline of BOTH David and
Solomon (See 2 Samuel and 2 Chronicles). Luke traces the bloodline through
Nathan, but Nathan was never a king of Israel.
Though Nathan is Jesus' biological link to David; it remains true that only a
descendant of Solomon can inherit the throne. In Jesus' rather unusual
circumstances; Jacob's precedent was just the way to do it.
In the 48th chapter of Genesis, Jacob adopted his own two grandsons
Manasseh and Ephraim; thus instating them positionally equal to his
twelve original sons.
The adoption of his own grandsons had the effect of adding additional
children to Rachel's brood just as effectively as the children born of her maid
Bilhah-- Dan, and Naphtali. Jacob's motive for adopting Joseph's boys was in
sympathy for his deceased wife being cut off during her child bearing years,
which subsequently prevented her from having any more children of her own.
Ephraim and Manasseh bring Rachel's total up to six: two of her own, two by
her maid Bilhah, and two by Joseph's wife Asenath.
This obscure bit of patriarchal prerogative has managed to evade the notice
of modern Jewry as evidenced by their stubborn rejection of Christ as a valid
candidate for David's throne on the basis that the boy didn't descend from
Solomon biologically. By demanding a strictly biological connection to
Solomon, they have effectively locked themselves into perpetual error; and
have impudently, and shamefully, taken it upon themselves to overrule
Jacob's precedent.
Now, fast-forward to the New Testament where the angel of The Lord spoke
to Joseph in a dream and ordered him to share the blame for Mary's out-of-
wedlock pregnancy by taking part in naming the child.
†. Matt 1:21 . . She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the
name Jesus
A child's name in those days wasn't chipped into stone until its biological
father gave his consent. For example; John the Baptist's dad Zacharias was
ordered to give his impending child the name of John.
†. Luke 1:13-14 . .The angel said to him: your wife Elizabeth will bear you a
son, and you shall call his name John.
And later on, "John" wasn't accepted until Zacharias gave his consent.
†. Luke 1:59-63 . . So it was, on the eighth day, that they came to
circumcise the child; and they would have called him by the name of his
father, Zacharias. His mother answered and said: No; he shall be called
John. But they said to her: There is no one among your relatives who is
called by this name. So they made signs to his father-- what he would have
him called. And he asked for a writing tablet, and wrote, saying: His name is
John.
Thus, by participating in the naming of Mary's baby, Joseph as much as
declared he was its biological father.
†. Luke 4:22 . . Isn't this Joseph's son? they asked.
By law; he sure was. Joseph was a fraud, yes, and his reputation was ruined
to boot because by declaring he was the baby's biological father; he as much
as declared that he and its mother slept together out of wedlock. But what
was he to do when that was the way God wanted it? But you see; it was
necessary that Joseph follow Jacob's lead in order to place Mary's baby in
line for Solomon's throne-- it was the only way.
Objection #3. If Mary is the transmitter of the bloodline of David, she could
not give what she didn't possess-- a Y chromosome --so Jesus would have
been a women; if anything.
(chuckle) that is not only a very humorous argument against Jesus' gender;
but also very weak. Don't you see? If humanity's creator could manufacture
an entire human being utilizing nothing but lifeless dust; then how hard could
it possibly be for Him to manufacture a measly little Y chromosome from living
human tissue?
Buen Camino
/
