|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Lineage of Jesus | |||||||||||||||||||||||
judge Member (Idle past 6464 days) Posts: 216 From: australia Joined: |
Dave:
Are you implying Mary was Jesus’ mother genetically? I’ve always thought (maybe assumed) that Jesus was planted in Mary without any of Mary’s genes. If that is the case did Jesus have genes? If so who’s genes did he get? If God is his father, would he have God’s genes? Does God have genes? I wouldn’t think so. Judge:Yes Mary was Jesus's mother genetically. Think of our bodies as clothes. Jesus appeared in earthly attire.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
judge Member (Idle past 6464 days) Posts: 216 From: australia Joined: |
Judge:
Mary's father was called joseph also. This was mistranslated into greek and then into english." Phil:That may very well be. Either way, the genealogy in Luke is through Mary, and not Joseph, Jesus' "father." Judge:Hmmmm...are you sure you have this right? The geneaology in Luke ids that of Joseph husband of Mary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
phil Guest |
Well, I am claiming that it is not through Joseph, but through Mary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
judge Member (Idle past 6464 days) Posts: 216 From: australia Joined: |
Phil:
Well, I am claiming that it is not through Joseph, but through Mary. judge:Can you explain how?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3796 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
I would have to wonder then from whom did he recieve the Y chromosome from? Unless THATS why he is shown having long hair in all those pictures I have seen of him...The greatest coup of all...Jesus was a girl
oops my apologies judge, this is for phil. I see this happened twice for you eheh {edited to clarify posts target} [This message has been edited by DBlevins, 08-19-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
phil Guest |
I did explain how in my first post, #41. I'll reiterate, though.
All four of the gospels portray Christ in a different way. Luke is written to show Christ as the "Son of Man." Luke therefore focuses on Jesus being born of a woman. Chapter one includes several passages all focusing on Mary (NIV: The Birth of Jesus Foretold, Mary Visits Elizabeth, and Mary's song--basically verses 26 through 56). It is only logical, then, for Luke to include the genealogy through Mary. Luke 3:23 says: "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old. . .He was the son, SO IT WAS THOUGHT, of Joseph. . ." I believe this is alluding to the fact that Joseph was not Jesus' real father, and that this particular genealogy is through Mary. It only says Joseph because Mary is included in the "house of Joseph," and it is customary to list the men.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
This explanation simply doesn't work. Can you show ANY examples of a Jewish, Greek or Roman genealogy, even remotely contemporary to Jesus where the father of a child is listed as being in the mother's line - without any indication at all of that ? Why not explicitly give Mary's lineage instead ? As Luke's genealogy is written it is clearly the line through Joseph.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1499 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I don't know that this is a good answer, but if you were tryingto win over a population of 'pagans' who had belief in the divinity of their great men of history wouldn't it make sense to create one for your religion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
phil Guest |
Sorry about the delayed reply; I have been very busy as of late.
I don't see how my explanation does not work. Whether or not you accept it as a valid explanation is a different story. I cannot give any examples of other genealogies written this way, but I didn't really look for any (it would be pretty hard to find something like that given my resources anyway). "Why not explicity give Mary's lineage instead?" I have answered this several times. . .Mary was a woman and so she was listed under the household of Joseph. I understand why it may seem overwhelmingly apparent that it is written through Joseph, but I believe there are enough clues to determine that it is actually through Mary. Also, if it is through Joseph, then why does Luke write, "He was the son of Joseph, SO IT WAS THOUGHT. . .?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: But where is your evidence for this? It isn't enough just to say that is what happened. You need to provide some proof.
quote: Because if Luke says Jesus is the son of Joseph he can't very well be the son of God, so instead he adds the disclaimer. Isn't it obvious? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Your explanation doesn't work because Luke's genealogy is traced through Joseph. You are tkaing a reading that is not so much strained as directly contrary to the text. *If* you coudl show some precedent or some evidence to suggest that such a reading were at all plausible I would listen, but what you have is so weak that I would be reluctant to even class it as circumstantial evidence.
And no you haven't explained why Luke did not give Mary's lineage explicitly - you have invented an excuse. Without any precedent or any reason to think that it is remotely plausible that a lineage would be written in the fashion you claim. It is not even as if Luke deliberately left clues - how much work would it take to give the name of Mary's father ? It's something that could quite naturally be included and while it would still only be a weak clue and inadequate to support your assertion it would have been far better than any of your "clues". And yes I can give plausible reasons why Luke's Gospel states "He was the son of Joseph, SO IT WAS THOUGHT. . .?"1) Only the paternal lineage counts so Joseph's lineage was given regardless 2) Luke copied the lineage from another source, but added the "SO IT WAS THOUGHT" to emphasise the Virgin Birth doctrine. 3) Luke did not write the "SO IT WAS THOUGHT", it was added early on because some readers were taking it as contradicitng the Virgin Birth doctrine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
phil Guest |
First off, John:
I do not need scientific evidence to prove that Mary was listed under the household of Joseph. Whether or not that means the genealogy in Luke is actually through Mary is more or less an opinion. At first glance it is very clear that it is written through Joseph. After studying the first few chapters of Luke, the themes of each gospel, the prophecies in the Old Testament, and the history of Joseph's lineage, though, it is clear TO ME that it is through Mary. If you disagree, I understand why, though. Also, the "so it was thought" does mean, primarily, that God is the actual father of Jesus, I believe. In the same way, I believe that Luke is trying to put emphasis on the fact that Joseph was not Christ's real father in order to establish this line through Mary. In other words, why would Luke emphasize that Joseph was not Christ's real father, yet continue to trace the lineage through him? PaulK: My explanation is not directly contrary to the text if you choose to believe that Mary is simply listed under the household of Joseph. If not, that's fine. Yes, this explanation might seem a bit "strained," but directly contrary to the text? No. Finally, I have some questions about your "plausible reasons": 1) Maybe I am reading this one wrong but how does this explain the "so it was thought"?2) I have never heard that Luke copied the lineage. Please explain this. 3) This contradicts your #3. How could Luke have added the "so it was thought" (as you state in #2) but not have written it (as you state in #3)? Also, please show some evidence that it was added "early on" (and if it was, why did they not add it to Matthew's genealogy as well?).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Sorry, but your "under the household of Joseph" doesn't explain why a man you say is Mary's father would be listed as Joseph's father. So your reading is direclty contradictory to the text.
As to my reasons, the first explains why Luke would give Jospeh's lineage even if he beleived that Joseph were not "really" Jesus' father. The second is equally simple, Luke would have had to have got the information from somewhere - so why not a written source ? As for the third, since I am presenting alternative explanations why should it be a problem if they contradict ? Only one of them needs to be the case. And why would I need evidence for things which are simply possible explantions ? YOu don't have any evidence to suggest that anyone would even think of writing a geneaology of the sort you attribute to Luke. If you require so little evidence for something so obviously implausible then why would I need any more ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6127 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
quote: Do you mind if I quote you on this statement? It should make for a lot of laughs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6127 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
quote: This is a very common question in discussions regarding Jesus' lineage. I wonder, however, if anyone has ever actually thought through all its ramifications. It seems to me that the question is merely a "red herring" and is used primarily because more valid arguments are hard to find. There is also the possibility that the question is intended to provide much humor at the Christians expense. Unfortunately, Phil's current plight is typical of most people to whom this question is posed. In an attempt to help Phil out of his plight, allow me to pose the following question in response to the first: Can you show ANY examples of a Jewish, Greek or Roman genealogy, even remotely contemporary to Jesus where a child who was born of a virgin is listed as being in the father's line? Perhaps a detailed answer to the second question would help Phil to find an answer for the first.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024