The Genealogy of Christ

[Jordan]

(Peacebewithyou;27032)
(Peacebewithyou;27025)
How sad that you've reduced the mother of our Lord to a human incubator.Jesus was 100% Mary's son - in every way. Your view is nothing short of heresy.
Scriptural support for Mary being the Mother of Christ:Gal 4:4But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,(you may want to meditate a bit on that Jag, it speaks of God SENDING His Son (obviously two seperate beings).. I know how that is confusing for you. )I'm not confused. Just because Mary is Yahshua's son doesn't mean she was without sin. There is only One that is without sin...that is Yahshua Himself. Mary is excluded from the without sin list.Jag

 

[Peacebewithyou]

(thesuperjag;27034)
I'm not confused. Just because Mary is Yahshua's son doesn't mean she was without sin. There is only One that is without sin...that is Yahshua Himself. Mary is excluded from the without sin list.Jag
That topic has already been covered. There is nothing I care to add - if you choose not to believe - so be it. I was responding to Kriss' accusation that Mary wasn't even the biological Mother of Jesus, but rather, just an incubator.

Gal 4:4 said he (Jesus) was "made of a woman." Sounds biological to me.

 

[Jordan]

(Peacebewithyou;27035)
(thesuperjag;27034)
I'm not confused. Just because Mary is Yahshua's son doesn't mean she was without sin. There is only One that is without sin...that is Yahshua Himself. Mary is excluded from the without sin list.Jag
That topic has already been covered. There is nothing I care to add - if you choose not to believe - so be it. I was responding to Kriss' accusation that Mary wasn't even the biological Mother of Jesus, but rather, just an incubator.

Gal 4:4 said he (Jesus) was "made of a woman." Sounds biological to me.Of course He was born out of a woman. However I can not let this false teaching of yours saying "Mary was without sin" slipped by... I want bible scriptures saying that Mary was without sin, or Mary was sinless.Jag

 

[tim_from_pa]

(Lunar;27033)
Hmm, unless there's an odd grammatical nuance in the original Hebrew which can't be conveyed in English, I'm not sure how you're making that conclusion. It sounds to me as though, when they say "(as was supposed") the son of Joseph," they're referring to the fact that Joseph was not the father of Jesus in the strictest sense - God was - but he still had familial ties to him. I don't see any evidence of Heli being Jesus' father in that passage - if he was trying to say that Heli was Jesus' father, there would have had to be a phrase like "but in fact" in the actual text. As it stands now, I'm simply at a loss as to how one could interpret that passage as saying anything other than that Heli was the father of Joseph.And, if the author of Luke was trying to make this the genealogy of Mary, why wouldn't he have mentioned Mary's name? You can't chalk it up "leaving Mary out of the genealogy given that women were not included," because if they were, why would he have bothered constructing Mary's genealogy in the first place? Many of the passages of the synoptic gospels overlap, with slight differences between their different tellings. If this is meant to be a genealogy of a completely different person, then we are also led to the conclusion that Luke consciously omitted the genealogy of Joseph while at the same time constructing a genealogy for Mary that sounds like it's for Joseph and never mentioned Mary's name - and that Matthew consciously omitted the Mary genealogy as well. That all sounds very far-fetched.I don't know - this is all pretty confusing to me.
Let me take away some clarifications which obviously did not clarify anything.

I'll say it the old way the bible states it and then just move the parenthesis to make a new way of saying it:OLD: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,NEW: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, (being as was supposed the son of Joseph), which was the son of Heli,The new way shows that the parenthetical passage is not included in the genealogy---- but a side mention. The word "which" after Joseph's name in the new quote would clearly refer to Jesus, not Joseph.Now let's take this one step further and eliminate the statement in the parenthesis And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, which was the son of Heli,Now. As for moving the parenthesis around.... that's not my idea. I was doing some study and came across a scholar on the Internet that made that claim regarding Jospejh being parenthetical.... I'll see if I can find the web site again. The bottom line is that since Joseph is mentioned parenthetically that something in parenthesis is a side thought not part of the main body of the text, in this case the genealogy. It's the same way when we speak something in English. A statement in parenthesis can be removed and the meaning of the sentence remains the same---- the parenthesis merely adds additional thought or information to the sentence.

 

[Lunar]

(tim_from_pa;27038)
The new way shows that the parenthetical passage is not included in the genealogy---- but a side mention. The word "which" after Joseph's name in the new quote would clearly refer to Jesus, not Joseph.Now let's take this one step further and eliminate the statement in the parenthesis.
Mmmm, mmm. Well, it would definitely make sense if the parenthesis were moved around, I suppose. The question is, why would they be, if that's not the way the original text was written?(tim_from_pa)
Now. As for moving the parenthesis around.... that's not my idea. I was doing some study and came across a scholar on the Internet that made that claim regarding Jospejh being parenthetical.... I'll see if I can find the web site again.
That would be very interesting to look at, if you could find it!(tim_from_pa)
The bottom line is that since Joseph is mentioned parenthetically that something in parenthesis is a side thought not part of the main body of the text, in this case the genealogy. It's the same way when we speak something in English. A statement in parenthesis can be removed and the meaning of the sentence remains the same---- the parenthesis merely adds additional thought or information to the sentence.
Well, it depends, I think. The way it reads now, with the parenthesis only encompassing the words "as was thought," it doesn't entail that Joseph as the subject of the genealogy being called into question. It simply entails that Joseph was not the precise father of Jesus (God was) but still had familial ties to him, and that the genealogy follows from Joseph in turn. Now, if something about the original Greek gave us reason to believe that the parenthesis as they are translated normally are placed improperly, that would be interesting. But you can't move the parenthesis around arbitrarily without changing the meaning. That's just not how parenthesis work. "As was thought" is what was mentioned parenthetically. Joseph himself was not.Let's put this in a different context. If I wrote "John (as some will attest) was the son of Mike, who was the son of Tom," who is John's father in this instance? Mike. But if I said "John (as some will attest was the son of Mike), was the son of Tom," who is John's father in this instance? Tom is, and the parenthesis are simply claiming that some are misguided in claiming that he was the son of Mike. You can't move the parenthesis around arbitrarily like that - the meaning is just not the same. So if there's a reason to believe that the original text would have placed the parenthesis as "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, (being as was supposed the son of Joseph), which was the son of Heli," then I'm sold. But if the restructuring of that parenthesis is meant to be an equivalent and equally viable reading, that's just not the case. Language is not associative the way addition is.

 

[Christina]

(Lunar;27016)
kriss:You seem to know a lot more about ancient languages than me, so I'm curious: is the word for "son" in the instance of "son of Heli" in the original Greek, different than the word for "son" that is used in the rest of the genealogy? I.e., is there any linguistic difference that differentiates between son-in-law (in Joseph son of Heli's case) and son (in the rest of the cases?)The reason I ask is because at the beginning of the gospel, in his dedication to Theophilus, the author of Luke writes: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."The fact that Luke states that he is writing an orderly account, seems to imply that there were some versions of the gospel circulating which the author of Luke found not to be orderly, and the fact that he is doing this so that Theophilus can know the truth implies that the author of Luke thinks that some gospels in circulation would not provide him with the truth. I have to wonder whether the difference in the genealogy was a correction on Luke's part, and if he thought the author of Matthew's genealogy was simply incorrect.Also, there's an interesting point to be made - Matthew's genealogy ends with Abraham, the father of the Jews. Luke's genealogy goes through Abraham but ends up all the way back at God himself (through Adam). I suppose it's possible that these genealogies are supposed to represent Joseph and Mary respectively (but it still seems very odd that Mary wouldn't be mentioned at all if it was her own genealogy. If there isn't a linguistic distinction in the original text between "son of" and "son-in-law of" that was lost in translation, I have to remain skeptical). But it's also possible that Luke was trying to emphasize, as opposed to Matthew, that Christ offered salvation to all people. He was not the new Moses, he was not offering salvation exclusively to Jews (as opposed to Matthew, where Jesus tells his disciples to not even so much as walk among Gentiles - the Jewishness of Matthew is something that I'm working on writing a post about). He was there to give salvation to all, both Jews and Gentiles, and tracing his lineage back to God (the father of all) rather than Abraham (the father of the Jews) underscores this point.
My error I should have said the way Jews used the terms of son and son in law not the hebrew they often didnt distigishActually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon Miriam was the daugter of Father:Amram Mother:JochebedBrothers: Moses ,and AaronMary was the Daughter of Father: Heli Heli was Son of Matthat and grandson of Levihttp://www.complete-bible-genealogy.com/

 

[Christina]

(Peacebewithyou;27025)
Nope. Not true. Jesus was Mary's genetic son. He did not inherit original sin because she was without sin. Impossible you say? With God all things are possible.How sad that you've reduced the mother of our Lord to a human incubator. Jesus was 100% Mary's son - in every way. Your view is nothing short of heresy.
Well if you will look I didnt write this just posted it but Im not sure than sin is in DNA I always understood it to be in the blood and Marys blood never was in Christ a baby makes its own blood. Scientific fact So in that sense Mary was just and ordinary person her blood was as sinful as anyone else sense she had a human mother and father She was no deity

 

[Peacebewithyou]

(kriss;27049)
Well if you will look I didnt write this just posted it but Im not sure than sin is in DNA I always understood it to be in the blood and Marys blood never was in Christ a baby makes its own blood. Scientific fact So in that sense Mary was just and ordinary person her blood was as sinful as anyone else sense she had a human mother and father She was no deity
I'm not sure what didn't write this, just posted it means? Did you cut/paste from someone else, but you don't believe it? Correct - Mary is certainly not God. (but she was sinless through the grace of her Savior (and dear Son), Jesus Christ)

 

[tim_from_pa]

("Lunar")
That would be very interesting to look at, if you could find it!
Here's a link i "refound" that mentions what I stated by a Baptist pastor. However, it's only a short paragraph and he does not cite his sources. This was not to my recollection the link I had in mind, but the thought is similar.http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper81/022281e.htmI found old bookmarks of mine and I believe I marked it under the title "genealogy of Luke", but to my dismay, when I clicked on it, the page was no longer there.I did find a tantalizing table of contents pages that deals with the parenthetical statement, from different perspectives which sounds just as interesting. Here's that link (see chapter 4) so this idea was definitely entertained by scholars.http://www.btinternet.com/~lmf12/1993ThesisContents.pdfI backed up one level to see if the book was online, but I found the works of Dr. Leslie McFall, and did not see works relating to Jesus's genealogy unless I missed it. I like her thesis in red near the top. That's so true.I will admit that one cannot actually prove what I stated is true, so skeptics will concoct their own (equally plausible) theory and try to prove the bible wrong. However, what I stated, if possible, offers a solution. Many fail to see that just because it cannot be proven that it must be false. But it takes just as much faith in an alternate theory and could be equally wrong.Those of a true logical and scientific mind would simply claim it is inconclusive---- one view cannot be proven over another view. Therefore, if what I propose is plausible, then the possibility exists that this is what happened and skeptics cannot truly say the genealogies contradict. Again, what they fail to understand is that an opposing theory is just as much that, a theory and takes equal faith and assumption, only in the negative form.

 

[Lunar]

(tim_from_pa;27138)
I will admit that one cannot actually prove what I stated is true, so skeptics will concoct their own (equally plausible) theory and try to prove the bible wrong. However, what I stated, if possible, offers a solution. Many fail to see that just because it cannot be proven that it must be false. But it takes just as much faith in an alternate theory and could be equally wrong.
I just don't buy it. It's not a matter of needing to be proven, or one theory involving more faith than another - the theory that says Luke contains Mary's genealogy requires that you arbitrarily switch around parenthesis and change the original meaning. Like I said, language does not have the associative property. You can't switch parenthesis at will. I simply don't see it as a possible solution at all, because it requires outright fabrication.

 

[tim_from_pa]

(Lunar;27143)
I just don't buy it. It's not a matter of needing to be proven, or one theory involving more faith than another - the theory that says Luke contains Mary's genealogy requires that you arbitrarily switch around parenthesis and change the original meaning. Like I said, language does not have the associative property. You can't switch parenthesis at will. I simply don't see it as a possible solution at all, because it requires outright fabrication.
Well, that's certainly your right. However, an outright fabrication is an extreme assertion. Your comment merely means you do not agree with the statement, but does not prove it false. There is no evidence for that. Many, many theologians believe this is Mary's genealogy, as do I as well, and that is not based on the placing of the parenthesis BTW. I was offering a solution as to why Joseph appeared to have two fathers based on whose genealogy you look at.We all have two pedigrees, one from the father and one from the mother. So my genealogy equally "contradicts".