A post that starts like this, I stop reading. I don't even know what you said after this point, and I don't really care.
Don't bother tagging me if this is how you are going to write.
Much love!
The song of Mary- an unorthodox perspective
- Thread starter Mr E
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Don't bother tagging me if this is how you are going to write.
Much love!
You're saying, having the English translation, that renders the Greek text meaningless? No, I don't agree with that.
Much love!
I'm saying the English has English meaning. You can pull it from any language in the world- and once you write it in English- you inherit the English rendering.
If I'm translating Russian to English, I do my best to get as close to the English word as I can for a reader. But the reader is only reading English and they will understand the English meaning and not even consider the Russian words. That's the whole point of translating from one language to another.
If you want to go back to the Greek, as with my example of the Greek word used for "uprightly" if the context required 'orthopaedics' which is the actual Greek word, the translator would have used that, instead of uprightly.
The same goes for begotten, begat, genesis, and so on. You don't get to insert your own understanding when it doesn't fit with the context.
You should be asking yourself-- How can it be that Joseph is the father of Jesus in both gospel accounts?
Ignoring for the moment that they don't agree and--- (parentheses aside) They agree on this^^^
Ignoring for the moment that they don't agree and--- (parentheses aside) They agree on this^^^
Johann
Well-Known Member
@Mr E I really thought you were "jesting"--but it would seem you are taking the rabbi's very seriously, if you want to, I can give you links to Answering Jewish objections--successful rebuttal's. But you are going to have to READ lengthy essays--like I have, and rabbinical sources.
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ,.... This is the genuine title of the book, which was put to it by the Evangelist himself; for the former seems to be done by another hand. This book is an account, not of the divine, but human generation of Christ; and not merely of his birth, which lies in a very little compass; nor of his genealogy, which is contained in this chapter; but also of his whole life and actions, of what was said, done, and suffered by him.
It is an Hebrew way of speaking, much like that in Gen_5:1 and which the Septuagint render by the same phrase as here; and as that was the book of the generation of the first Adam; this is the book of the generation of the second Adam. The Jews call their blasphemous history of the life of Jesus, ספר תולדות ישו "The book of the generations of Jesus" (o). This account of Christ begins with the name of the Messiah, well known to the Jews,
the son of David; not only to the Scribes and Pharisees, the more learned part of the nation, but to the common people, even to persons of the meanest rank and figure among them. See Mat_9:27.
Nothing is more common in the Jewish writings, than for בן דוד "the son of David" to stand alone for the Messiah; it would be endless to cite or refer to all the testimonies of this kind; only take the following (p),
"R. Jochanan says, in the generation in which בן דוד "the son of David" comes, the disciples of the wise men shall be lessened, and the rest, their eyes shall fail with grief and sorrow, and many calamities and severe decrees shall be renewed; when the first visitation is gone, a second will hasten to come. It is a tradition of the Rabbins (about) the week (of years) in which בן דוד "the son of David" comes, that in the first year this scripture will be fulfilled, Amo_4:7. "I will rain upon one city", &c. in the second, arrows of famine will be sent forth; in the third there will be a great famine, and men, women and children, holy men and men of business will die, and the law will be forgotten by those who learn it; in the fourth there will be plenty and not plenty; in the fifth there will be great plenty, and they shall eat and drink and rejoice, and the law shall return to them that learn it; in the sixth there will be voices (or thunders
in the seventh there will be wars; and in the going out of the seventh בן דוד the "son of David" comes.The tradition of R. Judah says, In the generation in which בן דוד "the son of David" comes, the house of the congregation (the school or synagogue) shall become a brothel house, Galilee shall be destroyed, and Gabalene shall become desolate; and the men of Gabul (or the border) shall go about from city to city, and shall find no mercy; and the wisdom of the scribes shall stink; and they that are afraid to sin shall be despised; and the face of that generation shall be as the face of a dog, and truth shall fail, as it is said, Isa_59:15 --
The tradition of R. Nehorai says, In the generation in which בן דוד "the son of David" comes, young men shall make ashamed the faces of old men, and old men shall stand before young men, the daughter shall rise up against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; nor will a son reverence his father. The tradition of R. Nehemiah says, In the generation in which בן דוד "the son of David" comes, impudence will increase, and the honourable will deal wickedly, and the whole kingdom will return to the opinion of the Sadducees, and there will be no reproof. --
It is a tradition of the Rabbins, that בן דוד "the son of David" will not come, until traitorous practices are increased, or the disciples are lessened or until the smallest piece of money fails from the purse, or until redemption is despaired of.''
In which passage, besides the proof for which it is cited, may be observed, how exactly the description of the age of the Messiah, as given by the Jews themselves, agrees with the generation in which Jesus the true Messiah came; who as he was promised to David, and it was expected he should descend from him, so he did according to the flesh; God raised him up of his seed, Rom_1:3 it follows,
The son of Abraham.
Abraham was the first to whom a particular promise was made, that the Messiah should spring from, Gen_22:18. The first promise in Gen_3:15 only signified that he should be the seed of the woman; and it would have been sufficient for the fulfilment of it, if he had been born of any woman, in whatsoever nation, tribe, or family; but by the promise made to Abraham he was to descend from him, as Jesus did; who took upon him the seed of Abraham, Heb_2:16 or assumed an human nature which sprung from him, and is therefore truly the son of Abraham.
The reason why Christ is first called the son of David, and then the son of Abraham, is partly because the former was a more known name of the Messiah; and partly that the transition
to the genealogy of Christ might be more easy and natural, beginning with Abraham, whom the Jews call (q) ראש היחס the "head of the genealogy", and the root and foundation of it, as Matthew here makes him to be; wherefore a Jew cannot be displeased with the Evangelist for beginning the genealogy of our Lord at, Abraham.
(o) Apud Wagenseil. Tela Ignea. (p) T. Bab. Sanhedrim, fol. 97. 1. Shir Hashirim Rabba, fol. 11. 4. (q) Juchasin, fol. 8. 1. Tzeror Hammor. fol. 29. 3. & 154. 4.
being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph; who had espoused Mary before she was with child of the Holy Ghost, and afterwards took her to wife, and brought up her son; so that it was not known but that he was the son of Joseph. Whether or no the Jewish notion of the Messiah, the son of Joseph (y) may not take its rise from hence, may be considered: however, Joseph might very rightly be called, as he was supposed to be, the father of Jesus, by a rule which obtains with the Jews (z) that he
"that brings up, and not he that begets, is called the father,''
or parent; of which they give various instances (a) in Joseph, in Michal, and in Pharaoh's daughter.
[I would suggest reading Dr. Michael Brown and Eithan or Proff. Solberg-- on this @Mr E }
Which was the son of Eli; meaning, not that Joseph was the son of Eli; for he was the son of Jacob, according to Mat_1:16, but Jesus was the son of Eli; and which must be understood, and carried through the whole genealogy, as thus; Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi, &c. till you come to Jesus the son of Adam, and Jesus the Son of God; though it is true indeed that Joseph was the son of Eli, having married his daughter; Mary was the daughter of Eli: and so the Jews speak of one Mary, the daughter of Eli, by whom they seem to design the mother of our Lord: for they tell (b) us of one,
"that saw, מרים בת עלי, "Mary the daughter of Eli" in the shades, hanging by the fibres of her breasts; and there are that say, the gate, or, as elsewhere (c), the bar of the gate of hell is fixed to her ear.''--terrible, is it not @Mr E?
By the horrible malice, in the words, you may know who is meant: however, this we gain by it, that by their own confession, Mary is the daughter of Eli; which accords with this genealogy of the evangelist, who traces it from Mary, under her husband Joseph; though she is not mentioned, because of a rule with the Jews (d), that
"the family of the mother is not called a family.''
(y) T. Bab. Succa, fol. 52. 1. Jarchi & Aben Ezra in Zech. xii 10. & xiii. 7. (z) Shemot Rabba, sect. 46. fol. 143. 1. (a) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 19. 2. Vid. T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 13. 1. (b) T. Hieros. Sanhedrin, fol. 25. 3. (c) Ib. Chagiga, fol. 77. 4. (d) Juchasin, fol. 55. 2.
Do you "see" what is going on here? Do read up the sources cited and get yourself into a mess with the Halakah and Kabbalah--Jewish "mysticism"--causing you, an intelligent man, to doubt the Gospels accounts.
Read carefully and thoughtfully.
Last edited:
It was a simple question-- are you honest enough to agree that both gospel accounts purport to be the lineage of Jesus?
And one of them is wrong.
Johann
Well-Known Member
Absolutely not--and you are evading direct questions, circular reasoning.
If you want to debate, any time. But don't resort to circular reasoning, I don't have time for that.
Johann
Well-Known Member
Just as I thought, you are a waste of time.Q—Are you honest enough???
A— Absolutely not
That’s what I thought.
I would suggest close your OP--you won't stand a chance in a debate.
Friendly advice.
J.
Last edited:
Let me throw you a bone. Something to chew on….
What if the whole (as was supposed) clause refers to Joseph’s genealogy and not the question of whether or not he was the father of Jesus?
Would that make any sense to you? Then Luke and Matthew can agree on who Jesus’ father was and the clause then points directly to something you’ve suggested— that being, who is Joseph’s father.
The text would read Jesus, (as was supposed) son of Joseph, son of Heli, and so on…. Because that’s what everyone assumed. People thought that was his link to the Davidic lineage. People may have known that Mary’s family traced directly back to David and so it was supposed that Joseph’s connection was through marriage and this supposed adoption by her father Heli.
Matthew gives the actual link. And Matthew leaves no doubt as to who Jesus’ father was.
What if the whole (as was supposed) clause refers to Joseph’s genealogy and not the question of whether or not he was the father of Jesus?
Would that make any sense to you? Then Luke and Matthew can agree on who Jesus’ father was and the clause then points directly to something you’ve suggested— that being, who is Joseph’s father.
The text would read Jesus, (as was supposed) son of Joseph, son of Heli, and so on…. Because that’s what everyone assumed. People thought that was his link to the Davidic lineage. People may have known that Mary’s family traced directly back to David and so it was supposed that Joseph’s connection was through marriage and this supposed adoption by her father Heli.
Matthew gives the actual link. And Matthew leaves no doubt as to who Jesus’ father was.
Johann
Well-Known Member
Very easy to answer--but you don't read, and don't have access to rabbinical writings--or don't know where to look.
You're not interested in rebuttals, and don't listen to video clips.
You're question has been answered--from rabbinical sources and the links I have provided, but you are not interested.
There are NO contradictions in Scriptures friend--I am very familiar with this line of reasoning from Scobac and others--as I said before, for years I have been listening to these rabbis and the counter-rebuttals and have gone online to find everything rabbinic--they all debunk our New Testament, Christ, the crucifixion and resurrection, and they know your Scriptures better than you.
..and you are stuck on the "genealogies"==the seed of doubt is already sown and you are unaware of the big picture.
So why do you need me?
Your "Ha-ha's" shows me that you are not up to the task to refute anything, and your insecurity--since a rabbi will run circles around you friend--no time for "Ha-Ha"--grow a pair, man up and show me what you are made of, or close your thread, simple as that.
J.
Last edited:
Johann
Well-Known Member
Here a bone to chew on--why do you think we have two genealogies?
That of Matthew and Luke? Think Jewish and read with a Jewish mindset.
Waiting on him
Well-Known Member
As I understand it, yes, he is saying Jesus was not virgin born.
And that in fact, that this is a Satanic deception.
Much love!
Johann
Well-Known Member
Are you suggesting Mary was NOT a Ha Almah when she "had Yeshua?"
Waiting on him
Well-Known Member
I believe Joseph Caiaphas was high priest that year
That’s right, also the account in Isaiah of the virgin birth has nothing to do with Jesus. The account Isaiah gave was pertaining to the 8th century BC. The northern and southern kingdoms weren’t at war in the first century. I’d go further and suggest Joseph Caiaphus was John the Baptist baby daddy also.
Similar threads
