|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Jesus - the Lineage | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4148 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
This is really a quite short straight forward question but I couldn't think of any existing thread to ask it on....
Why do we have the lineage of Joseph? he's not Jesus's father so why does it matter? (Clearly I've missed something obvious). Moreover there seem to be two genealogies for Jesus in the New Testament? Why? This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 10-Aug-2005 07:08 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Charles, this website has some answers that would justifiably represent the view of many Christians.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 08-12-2005 10:52 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6516 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Rule 5:
Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references. That's a big site Phat, what specific part are you refering to?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It's highly likely that there are two answers to the issue of geneology in the Bible. First, at the time of the OT and even into the NT, who you are was defined in a great sense by clan and family relationships. We were only in the early days of general naming, people were known by some nickname that was often then connected to either a profession, physical feature, clan association or geographic locale. Geneology then was very important in determining how you were to be treated, what your social standing might be, how you were expected to behave or what rights you might have,
The second big reason was an after the fact one. During the period after Jesus death, when a religion was being formed around his personna, it was necessary for the sake of the franchise to find as many legitimizing factors as possible. To support the idea that Jesus was the Messiah of OT prophecy, it was important to connect all the dots as described. This took some freedom with convention but was not out of character or tradition in either the time or culture. The bottom line is that while Geneology was important, it was not seen in the same straightforward linear model we use today. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Here is the part of the site that discussed the issue:
Matthew and Luke present different genealogies of Jesus--one through David's son Solomon (the royal line) and the other through David's son Nathan (the non-royal line). The royal line is traced in Matthew; the "natural" line in Luke. Matthew's genealogy goes only back to Abraham (to show the Jewish character of the King); Luke's goes back to Adam (to show the universal aspect of the Savior). Matthew's emphasizes Jesus' royalty; Luke, his humanity. It was found here.
It is generally accepted (but not unanimously) that the genealogy in Matthew belongs to Joseph's family, and the one in Luke applies to Mary's line. (The historical evidence is fairly strong that both Mary and Joseph were of the house of David.) Both genealogies are 'aware' of the virgin birth: Luke adds the phrase "He was the son, SO IT WAS THOUGHT, of Joseph" (3:23) and Matthew switches verbs from "X begat Y" to "Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom (feminine pronoun) was born Jesus". So, how does Joseph 'step into' Mary's lineage? How does he 'pick up' her legal heritage? Probably through the law of levirate marriage. The Jewish folk had numerous provisions for cases of inheritance-transfer in extreme cases. One of the more frequent situations that had to be covered (in a land-based, clan-ownership system) was that of childless marriages, or in some cases, of son-less marriages.One of the more concise statements of how this would apply here, is by J. Stafford Wright in Dict. of New Test. Theol., III. 662: "Mary's father (Heli?) had two daughters, May and the unnamed wife of Zebedee (John 19:25; Matt 27:56). If there were no sons, Joseph would become son of Heli on his marriage, to preserve the family name and inheritance (cf. Num 27:1-11; 36:1-12, esp. v. 8, which accounts for Mary marrying a man of the family of David.)"[The main passages in the OT that refer to these various laws are Num 7:1-11; Num 36:1-12; Lev 25:25; Dt 25:5-10. These practices were widespread in the Ancient Near East, and a good discussion of the details in Israel and differences from the ANE can be found in Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Vol 1--Social Institutions. Two famous cases, for good or ill, of these practices are in the story of Ruth (Book of Ruth) and in the story of Tamar (Gen 38:6ff).] What this 'nets out to' is that Joseph 'married into' Mary's gene-pool...and hence, the virgin birth doesn't stop the lineage "transfer". In other words, the the physical-gene did NOT come FROM JOSEPH was IRRELEVANT in this case. Legal standing was related to EITHER 'genes' OR to 'marriage'. (Although it should be pointed out that levirate arrangements like this required close kinship already, and hence, quite a number of overlapping genes.). So, strictly speaking, Jesus got his genes from Mary and his legal standing (in the royal heir line) from Joseph (thru the marriage of M+J).Now, as a practical matter, I consider the gene-issue to be important, simply because there were NUMEROUS other indications that the Messiah WOULD BE from the 'stock of Jesse' etc--images and phrases that DO put more emphasis on the blood-line that does simply 'legal lineage'--but I am persuaded that these requirements were adequately satisfied from Mary's side.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hoaryhead  Inactive Member |
Jesus was to be the Son of David; "There shall come forth a Rod [Jesus] from the stem [David] of Jesse. And a Branch [Jesus] shall grow from his roots [Jesse]" - Isa 11.1.
Then Jesus was predicted to be anointed with the 7 Spirits of God -Isa 11.2-4; and with the Holy Spirit - Lk 3.22. "Things equal to the same thing [the anointing of Jesus] are equal to each other." So then, Holy Spirit = 7 Spirits of God. And, this was the purpose of the genealogies of Jesus. Premillennialists say the Messiah is yet to come, but the genealogies were lost almost 1900 years ago. This too, seems to be a reason for the first century genealogies. Let the wise man hear! hoaryhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
The historical evidence is fairly strong that both Mary and Joseph were of the house of David. Is there historical evidence that these people even existed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad Member (Idle past 4808 days) Posts: 143 From: Portland OR, USA Joined: |
I believe that Brian answered these questions and more in one of his threads. I couldn't find the link to it, however. Brian wen't into great detail about why this sort of reasoning is absolutely absurd, but for the life of me I can't remember exactly what he posted. I would highly suggest finding that thread before moving on here...
Brad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4979 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
We need the search function enabled again, it is si useful, but here is the thread with the proof that Jesus was no messiah, the bloodline is in post one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
I respect Brian, but I won't acknowledge the wisdom of an atheist/agnostic "theologian." My whole point is that wisdom is not human originated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Is there historical evidence that these people even existed? We all tend to believe based on what we previously believe...and "seeing" is believing. What do you want? Bones and skulls, fragments of physical objects, or ideas and philosophies preserved throughout time? I can see where you question the ideas and philosophies ...you cannot really "see" the point now can you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad Member (Idle past 4808 days) Posts: 143 From: Portland OR, USA Joined: |
That's all good and well with that long quote. But it doesn't address the obvious. Joseph and Mary WERE NOT YET MARRIED when Jesus was born. That means that the law of levirate didn't apply in this instance (to my knowledge). I also note that it says in here that most scholars accept that the genealogy in Matthew belongs to Joseph's family, and the one in Luke applies to Mary's line. I have read from several people (one that comes to hand is Timothy Freke) is that the reason the genealogies are different is because matthew and luke were written about the same time and didn't know of the other's existance. Thus they had the basic idea right. They both knew who the father of Joseph was, and they both knew that the genealogy had to start at David. All this rationalization seems a bit overkill, but maybe that's just me. Just my $0.02. I'll let someone who knows more then me give some meaty answers.
This message has been edited by Brad, 08-30-2005 12:30 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad Member (Idle past 4808 days) Posts: 143 From: Portland OR, USA Joined: |
I missed the part where you established that your point was that wisdom is not human iriginated. I saw a cut and paste where you stated basically this is what many Christians believe. That aside, rejecting something based on the fact that the person who wrote it is not a Christian is willful ignorance, so instead of that perhaps you could answer what it is about Brian's analysis that you disagree with?
Brad AbE I don't mean to come off as rude. But you understand my point, don't you? Simply saying that Brian's arguments are irrelevent because he doesn't share your faith seems silly. So perhaps you could address the points instead of the person? This message has been edited by Brad, 08-30-2005 12:42 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
I have not decided what to believe about Brians scholarly arguments about the bible. I agree that the book is not "perfect" in fact or authority, but I DO believe that the "character" behind the book, Jesus Christ, is alive, real, and not a product of human legend or imagination. This is where brian and I do not see eye to eye. He DOES have great arguments, however. I stick to my beliefs on faith alone...based on personal encounters with an objective God.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024