Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,417 Year: 6,674/9,624 Month: 14/238 Week: 14/22 Day: 5/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.
Brian
Member (Idle past 5208 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


(1)
(1)
Message 1 of 427 (539888)
12-20-2009 12:08 PM


I’ll make this fairly brief and list just a few reasons and examples of why I believe that Jesus was a failure. I dare say that a few more reasons will be added as the thread develops.
Anyway, the first issue is in relation to the aspirations of Jesus as the promised Messiah of the Tanakh. I have been constantly reminded by Christians that Jesus was the Messiah, but have they really examined the evidence or are they so blinded by faith that they cannot see the obvious?
What is the evidence then? Well the ONLY record of the life of Jesus is the text of the New Testament and of other biblical texts (such as The Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Barnabas) that did not make the cut when the editing committees constructed the NT. Since these texts are not normally referred to when making a case for Jesus’ Messianic claims we just need to look at the current NT texts.
We also have to look at another collection of texts, The Tanakh, since that is where the origins of messianic ideology begin. We need to look there to discover what the Messiah actually is then apply the verses to the life of Jesus we have in the NT.
Thirdly, we need to look at the historical evidence. The events that the Old and the New Testaments relate did not take place in a vacuum. Many of these events would have had a huge impact of the face of history so it is an important resource. Also, many of these events need to be examined for historical plausibility we cannot just accept something because it appears in writing.
Remember that these are some of my reasons for concluding that Jesus was not the Messiah, and I don’t expect any of the believers to be convinced by any of these conclusions. I was asked why I conclude that Jesus was a failure, and the following is just a brief outline.
Firstly, it is a basic understanding that the Messiah will be a descendant of King David, and in particular a descendant of David’s son Solomon (the so-called ‘Nathan prophecy’)
2 Samuel 7:8-13
"Now then, tell my servant David, 'This is what the LORD Almighty says: I took you from the pasture and from following the flock to be ruler over my people Israel. I have been with you wherever you have gone, and I have cut off all your enemies from before you. Now I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men of the earth. And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies.
'The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
So this is very straightforward, to be the Messiah you have to be a descendant of David through his son Solomon, does Jesus fulfil this criteria?
I’m not going to go into every detail here as this is just the opening post, but we should all be aware that there are a great many issues surrounding the two conflicting genealogies given in Matthew and Luke for Jesus’ father Joseph.
The first issue with these genealogies is that they are both artificial. Matthew arranges his in 3 groups of 14, if we include Jesus. Matthew quite clearly omits many of Jesus’ ‘ancestors’ to achieve this order, for example Matthew gives only a few names to cover centuries of time, Boaz, Obed and Jesses covers a period of over 350 years, so we know that names must be missing. Luke also arranges his genealogies in sets of 7, but does have a more realistic number of ancestors, although there are difficulties such as three generations covering a period of 430 years (Aminadab, Aram, Esron).
It is universally accepted, probably because it is so obvious, that the two genealogies of Jospeh are artificial. For me this sets off alarm bells. Why are these genealogies so different, and since they are artificial then they are artificial for a reason. This brings into question the reliability of the testimony of the authors of these Gospels, if they are tampering already with the evidence then we know that they are not completely reliable.
It has been suggested that the genealogy of Luke is that of Jesus’ mother Mary, but this causes more difficulties that it solves. If this is Mary’s genealogy it only goes back to David through his son Nathan, and as we know the Messiah is to come from the line of David but through Solomon, so this idea is useless. What I find very interesting regarding Luke’s genealogy being Mary’s is the fact that both genealogies were accepted as being Jesus’ for nearly 1500 years. The apologetic suggesting that this was Mary’s genealogy was only presented in the 15th century by Annius of Viterbo. Most damning of this proposal is the fact that Mary is NOT mentioned in Luke’s genealogy. So, if these are the genealogies of two different people then why did it take nearly 1500 to suggest this, surely it would have been accepted from the very start?
Then we have the oft discussed topic that if Jesus was born of a virgin then he is not Joseph’s son, and therefore not a descendant of David, so no Messiah. There are other issues with genealogies, I’m sure we will get to them, but these two superficial glances at His genealogies already bring into doubt the reliability of the written record of Jesus’ life.
The Nathan Prophecy is also one source that informs us that the Messiah would also sit on the throne of Israel. Jesus claimed to be a king:
Young’s Literal Translation John 18:37
Pilate, therefore, said to him, `Art thou then a king?' Jesus answered, `Thou dost say ; because a king I am , I for this have been born, and for this I have come to the world, that I may testify to the truth; every one who is of the truth, doth hear my voice.'
NIV
You are a king, then! said Pilate. Jesus answered, You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.
There is no mention of Jesus’ coronation in the NT or in secular sources, so Jesus lied, or the poor guy was so deluded that He actually believed that He had been crowned king of Israel.
There is no record of Jesus ever being crowned king of Israel, you think that the NT, and secular sources, would have mentioned His coronation, but Jesus was never crowned king of Israel, thus He was not the Messiah.
The Messiah would also set Israel free from her oppressors, and gather the Jewish nation back to Israel.
Isaiah 11:12
He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth.
Does this sound remotely like anything that Jesus achieved? Jesus failed here too because Israel was even more oppressed after Jesus’ birth arrival and death.
Next up, the Messianic age would witness the rebuilding the Temple on Temple Mount.
Isaiah 2:2
In the last days
the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established
as chief among the mountains;
it will be raised above the hills,
and all nations will stream to it.
Jesus did not build any Temple, in fact the Temple He knew was still standing during His lifetime so this makes it even more obvious that Jesus was no Messiah.
The Messiah will also bring to an end all war and establish peace on Earth.
Micah 4:3
He will judge between many peoples and will settle disputes for strong nations far and wide. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.
Where’s this peace that Jesus should have brought? Since His death we have developed weapons that can destroy the entire Earth! Once again Jesus has failed.
The long and the short of it is that Jesus failed to fulfil a single messianic prophecy, and is therefore a failed preacher. Feel free to call Jesus The Messiah if you want to, but He certainly was not The Messiah promised by Yahweh in the Tanakh, to think so is simply perverse.
Bible study please.
Edited by Brian, : spelin

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Jazzns, posted 12-21-2009 10:53 AM Brian has replied
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 12-22-2009 8:11 PM Brian has replied
 Message 73 by Barabbas126, posted 12-26-2009 12:26 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 129 by Brad H, posted 01-06-2010 3:00 AM Brian has replied
 Message 264 by John 10:10, posted 01-25-2010 1:15 PM Brian has replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 427 (539898)
12-20-2009 1:10 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure. thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 1050 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 3 of 427 (539919)
12-20-2009 3:43 PM


I'd like to add a bit about Jesus' geneology:
So you say jesus is god's son: If there was immaculate conception, how does his lineage not go directly to god and stop right there?
Ok, so you say he IS god. Again, NO lineage due to him impregnating Mary himself. He is his own lineage.
If he is who you say he is, either joseph is his father, thus no immaculate conception, or his lineage is false.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Briterican, posted 12-20-2009 5:38 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 14 by Son Goku, posted 12-21-2009 12:15 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 4197 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 4 of 427 (539931)
12-20-2009 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by hooah212002
12-20-2009 3:43 PM


Immaculate deception
Hi hooah
So you say jesus is god's son: If there was immaculate conception, how does his lineage not go directly to god and stop right there?
Ok, so you say he IS god. Again, NO lineage due to him impregnating Mary himself. He is his own lineage.
If he is who you say he is, either joseph is his father, thus no immaculate conception, or his lineage is false.
Very valid points.
Additionally, before Christians can even begin to tackle this apparent conundrum, they should first consider the apparent origin of the virgin birth story:
Richard Dawkins writes:
"... This is one of several constructive mistranslations that bedevil the Bible, the most famous being the mistranslation of Isaiah's Hebrew for young woman (almah) into the Greek for virgin (parthenos). An easy mistake to make (think of the English words 'maid' and 'maiden' to see how it might have happened), this one translator's slip was to be wildly inflated and give rise to the whole preposterous legend of Jesus' mother being a virgin!)"
As for Jesus' success-rate at fulfilling messianic prophecy, I have to agree with Brian that it is appalling. Having said that, I don't expect any possible future contender to be met with success either. The things the messiah is meant to accomplish are all hostages to fortune anyway.
Edited by Briterican, : Added last bit to address OP directly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by hooah212002, posted 12-20-2009 3:43 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 12-20-2009 6:33 PM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 5208 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


(1)
Message 5 of 427 (539934)
12-20-2009 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Briterican
12-20-2009 5:38 PM


Re: Immaculate deception
Additionally, before Christians can even begin to tackle this apparent conundrum, they should first consider the apparent origin of the virgin birth story:
This is not the only problem with this though. The child mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 was born 700 years before Jesus!
Plus, according to the Nathan prophecy the Messiah will be an ADOPTED son of Yahweh, not an actual son.
Also, the Messiah was never seen as a divine being.
The whole thing is just a mess. Whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew made a huge error here. It is assumed that the author was using a poor Greek translation of the Tanakh when he made this mistake.
There's a nice little clue in Paul's 1 Timothy 1:3-4 as to the construction of Jesus' ancestors.
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's workwhich is by faith.
To me this suggests that there have always been controversies surrounding Jesus' bloodline, PAul probably heard so many of them that he felt compelled to ask people to give it a rest.
He appears completely fed up with it all in Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.
I'm sure the usual apologetics will be trotted out here soon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Briterican, posted 12-20-2009 5:38 PM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by hooah212002, posted 12-20-2009 8:34 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 13 by Jazzns, posted 12-21-2009 10:56 AM Brian has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 1050 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 6 of 427 (539939)
12-20-2009 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Brian
12-20-2009 6:33 PM


Re: Immaculate deception
Plus, according to the Nathan prophecy the Messiah will be an ADOPTED son of Yahweh, not an actual son.
*Well then, that would fit jesus to a tee, yes? Would Joseph not have adopted this bastard child of Mary's?
But then he wouldn't be god OR god's son.
The way I see it, the story goes about the 3 wisemen and whatnot, you would think ONE of them would have noted what day it was, what with this being the fucking savior of mankind and all. An entire religion, millions of people, is based off this fella, yet no one is certain of his birthday? He is the seemingly only person where his death is more celebrated than his birth. I think this comic sums it up nicely:
*I wholeheartedly admit to not being as studied on Theology as most here. However, I have read enough of the bible to spot these inaccuracies (for myself. Maybe not enough to sway believers, but enough to not be swayed by them).
Edited by AdminPD, : Rude and off topic portions rendered invisible.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 12-20-2009 6:33 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-21-2009 1:30 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 9 by AdminPD, posted 12-21-2009 7:04 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 332 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
(1)
Message 7 of 427 (539959)
12-21-2009 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by hooah212002
12-20-2009 8:34 PM


Re: Immaculate deception
*Well then, that would fit jesus to a tee, yes? Would Joseph not have adopted this bastard child of Mary's?
But then he wouldn't be god OR god's son.
The way I see it, the story goes about the 3 wisemen and whatnot, you would think ONE of them would have noted what day it was, what with this being the fucking savior of mankind and all. An entire religion, millions of people, is based off this fella, yet no one is certain of his birthday? He is the seemingly only person where his death is more celebrated than his birth. I think this comic sums it up nicely:
Lets respond to the vulgar big mouth first. And i will try to get to the rest as quickly as i can. here is something to consider from a writer with knowledge of the subject
Steven breedlove writes in his article 'The geneology of jesus christ'
Quote "As Matthew continues to follow the line from David to Christ, Matthew traces the lineage through Jesus' earthly father, Joseph. This, too, indicates that Matthew is writing to the Jewish people. During first century times, if a Jewish man adopted a son, that son receives the father's lineage. Therefore, according to Jewish tradition, Jesus would be given the genealogy of his adopted father."
a simple solution to a seeming problem
Ill try and get to the rest later
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by hooah212002, posted 12-20-2009 8:34 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Brian, posted 12-21-2009 6:47 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 5208 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 8 of 427 (539969)
12-21-2009 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dawn Bertot
12-21-2009 1:30 AM


Re: Immaculate deception
During first century times, if a Jewish man adopted a son, that son receives the father's lineage. Therefore, according to Jewish tradition, Jesus would be given the genealogy of his adopted father."
I'd be very interested in seeing Breedlove's support for this claim because it is contrary to what the Tanakh says and and history tells us that Jewish adoption was unknown in the first century, did he reference it in his article?
Also, where in the New Testament does it indicate that Joseph adopted Jesus?
So, 2 things.
1. Scriptural support for the claim that Joseph adopted Jesus.
2. Evidence that adoption was a Jewish custom in the first century.
Thanks.
Edited by Brian, : Formating error

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-21-2009 1:30 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


(1)
Message 9 of 427 (539971)
12-21-2009 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by hooah212002
12-20-2009 8:34 PM


Manners Please
Hooah212002,
The OP set the tone for the discussion, please follow suit.
This is the Bible Study forum, please argue accordingly and maintain a respectful attitude.
Keep to the topic.
Thanks
AdminPD

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by hooah212002, posted 12-20-2009 8:34 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 5208 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 10 of 427 (539978)
12-21-2009 9:06 AM


For those interested
Anyone who has been hit with the ‘Ah but Jesus was Joseph’s adopted son, so He qualifies for Davidic ancestry through adoption’ apologetic that many Christians uncritically accept, this is an interesting article:
Levin, Yigal (2006) Jesus, ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of David’: The ‘Adoption’ of Jesus into the Davidic Line. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2006; 28; 415-442
Here are some extracts from it.
p.422
But when pressed for either precedence or proof of such adoption, the vast majority of commentators simply refer to ‘Jewish custom’ or ‘Jewish Law’. As early as 1930, Machen stated that in the Jews’ ‘Semitic way of thinking’, they looked upon ‘adoptive fatherhood in a much more realistic way than we look upon it’ (Machen, J.G. (1930) The Virgin Birth of Christ p.129 (New York: Harper & Brothers).
p. 423
However, while adoption is known in some Ancient Near Eastern legal codes, Jewish law, both in antiquity and in the modern era, has no such legal institution.
In addition, as summarized by Tigay, ‘if adoption played any role at all in Israelite family institutions, it was an insignificant one’. Also ‘for the post-Exilic periodthere is no reliable evidence for adoption at all’ (Tigay, J.H. 1971 ‘Adoption’, EncJud, II: p. 300).
p.424
While, presumably, a man’s taking in a foundling and raising him as a son would be considered ‘a good deed’, such de facto adoption does not give the child any inherited status. For example, the ‘adopted’ son of a priest would not be considered a priest, and a boy and girl adopted by the same parents would be allowed to marry each other without fear of incest. (Gold, M. 1987 ‘Adoption: A New Problem for Jewish Law’, Judaism 36: p. 443)
p.425.
In a nutshell, there is nothing in Jewish law, in either the Hebrew Bible or in later Halakhah, which can be seen as the model by which Jesus, Son of God, could have been considered the legal, but not genetic, heir to the Davidic throne.
Therefore, if anyone tells you that Jesus was adopted and that made him a direct descendant of David then ask for their evidence that this custom actually existed.
You may also wish to mention that the Nathan Pophecy negates Jesus' bloodline if He was adopted as it says:
2 Samuel 7:12
When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom.
What more evidence is required that the Messiah HAS to be a blood descendant of David. Adopting is, without doubt, a very noble act, but it does not pass on any blood. Thus Jesus was not the Messiah.

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-21-2009 10:55 AM Brian has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 4160 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 11 of 427 (539985)
12-21-2009 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
12-20-2009 12:08 PM


Jesus, Interrupted
For me it is certainly a nice coincidence that you started this thread, I just started reading Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman and he goes over the geneology discrepancy and it just floored me. In my time as a believer I read the gospels straight through more than any other books in the Bible and I never noticed.
I try to remember and I think that I usually just skipped over the "...begat..." parts because I didn't really care. It is amazing what you can't see until someone says, "look right there"!
The biggest problem I have with assigning one of the geneologies to Mary is that both of them mention Joseph explicitly. I never quite understood where that argument came from although I admit I haven't look very hard. Who's idea was that? It seems painfully easy to refute right there in the text. Either they literally meant to describe the geneology of Joseph or if one of them really meant Mary then the text itself is in fact wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 12-20-2009 12:08 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by slevesque, posted 12-21-2009 5:28 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 30 by Brian, posted 12-23-2009 6:11 AM Jazzns has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 332 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 12 of 427 (539986)
12-21-2009 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Brian
12-21-2009 9:06 AM


Re: For those interested
Brian writes
Anyone who has been hit with the ‘Ah but Jesus was Joseph’s adopted son, so He qualifies for Davidic ancestry through adoption’ apologetic that many Christians uncritically accept, this is an interesting article:
Levin, Yigal (2006) Jesus, ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of David’: The ‘Adoption’ of Jesus into the Davidic Line. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2006; 28; 415-442
Here are some extracts from it.
p.422
But when pressed for either precedence or proof of such adoption, the vast majority of commentators simply refer to ‘Jewish custom’ or ‘Jewish Law’. As early as 1930, Machen stated that in the Jews’ ‘Semitic way of thinking’, they looked upon ‘adoptive fatherhood in a much more realistic way than we look upon it’ (Machen, J.G. (1930) The Virgin Birth of Christ p.129 (New York: Harper & Brothers).
p. 423
However, while adoption is known in some Ancient Near Eastern legal codes, Jewish law, both in antiquity and in the modern era, has no such legal institution.
In addition, as summarized by Tigay, ‘if adoption played any role at all in Israelite family institutions, it was an insignificant one’. Also ‘for the post-Exilic periodthere is no reliable evidence for adoption at all’ (Tigay, J.H. 1971 ‘Adoption’, EncJud, II: p. 300).
p.424
While, presumably, a man’s taking in a foundling and raising him as a son would be considered ‘a good deed’, such de facto adoption does not give the child any inherited status. For example, the ‘adopted’ son of a priest would not be considered a priest, and a boy and girl adopted by the same parents would be allowed to marry each other without fear of incest. (Gold, M. 1987 ‘Adoption: A New Problem for Jewish Law’, Judaism 36: p. 443)
p.425.
In a nutshell, there is nothing in Jewish law, in either the Hebrew Bible or in later Halakhah, which can be seen as the model by which Jesus, Son of God, could have been considered the legal, but not genetic, heir to the Davidic throne.
Therefore, if anyone tells you that Jesus was adopted and that made him a direct descendant of David then ask for their evidence that this custom actually existed.
You may also wish to mention that the Nathan Pophecy negates Jesus' bloodline if He was adopted as it says:
2 Samuel 7:12
When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom.
What more evidence is required that the Messiah HAS to be a blood descendant of David. Adopting is, without doubt, a very noble act, but it does not pass on any blood. Thus Jesus was not the Messiah.
Admittedly I am no expert in these matters and we learn as we go, so I am previledged to study what others have to say in these matters and in this connection. it seems as though there is much more information involved, as I suspected, than that whic is presented on this website at times.
More explanation and deeper insight reveal that such seeming contradictions can be explained when we have alittle more information.
Admittedly brian and I will back what information seems to coroborate our positions and we may never know all the details that are involved in such matters. here is an article, that seems to be exhausitive in nature to clear up some of the questions that arise as we go through these topics.
the least of which is that jesus failed either in history or teaching to qulify as the messiah
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt11.html
'New Light on the Geneologies of Jesus'
B. FIVE PROPOSED SOLUTIONS T0 THE PROBLEM
To the problem of the historicity of the genealogies of Our Lord in Matthew and Luke, five solutions may be considered. The two classic solutions are the theory of levirate marriage and the theory of Marian genealogy.
1. LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. The Law of the Levirate states: "When brothers dwell together, and one of them dies without children, the wife of the deceased shall not marry another, but his brother shall take her and raise up seed for his brother. And the first son he shall have of her he shall call by his name, that his name be not abolished out of Israel" (Deut 25:5-6).
According to an explanation going back in essence at least to Julius Africanus in the first half of the third century A.D. (who claimed to have heard it as handed down by the relatives of Jesus), Joseph's grandmother (Estha) bore Jacob to one husband (Matthan) and Eli to a second (Matthat). Joseph's mother married Eli, who died without children; then she married his uterine brother Jacob, who raised up Joseph as seed to Eli. Thus Joseph had Eli as his legal father and Jacob as his biological father. The genealogy of Matthew shows the biological ancestry of Jesus, and that of Luke the legal ancestry. 3
This solution is excluded by Raymond Brown, who says: "The theory of a levirate marriage solves so little and has so many difficulties that it should be abandoned as a solution in the problem of the two genealogies, and even in the more restricted problem of Jesus' overabundance of grandfathers." 4
The difficulties as seen by Brown are four in number:
a) Matthan and Matthat are similar names. Thus one is faced with the "dubious coincidence" that the mother of Jacob and Eli married two men who had almost the same names. But similarity of first names is not unheard of in the case of successive husbands or in the case of brothers. Hence, no historian can exclude this explanation, handed down from early times, on the mere ground that the names of the two husbands are similar.
b) "We are not certain how widely levirate marriage was practiced in Jesus' time." But it was probably practiced, as Brown himself admits. Therefore, no historian can exclude this explanation on the ground that it couldn't have happened. It would have taken only one instance to make it happen, and history abounds with unique happenings.
c) If Joseph were the issue of a levirate marriage, it would be "very strange" to have a genealogical list going back through his biological father. It would not be strange at all, it seems to me, especially if Matthew had a particular purpose for doing so, such as tracing the more direct line of royal descent, which, in fact, he does. A prominent example of a known levirate marriage in the same list of names, Obed, has his ancestry traced back through Boaz, his biological father (Ruth 4). And in the case of Matthew and Luke both ancestries are preserved. Hence, the explanatian of a levirate marriage cannot be logically excluded on this ground.
d) "Why does Matthew trace descent through David's son Solomon, while Luke traces it through David's son Nathan?" The answer to this is obvious: because two different lines of ancestry go back to David, one from Matthan through Solomon, the other from Matthat through Nathan. Hence, the levirate explanation cannot be excluded on the ground of this divergence.
The conclusion would seem to be that Brown does not present cogent grounds for abandoning the possibility of a solution through levirate marriage, since four flimsy reasons do not add up to one good reason. Difficulties and improbabilities do, indeed, lead one to be wary of accepting this solution as proven historical fact, but the historian needs real historical evidence in order to exclude it as a possible historical fact. The historian can recognize beneath the problem of the two genealogies a unique historical background created by the Law of the Levirate, whereby levirate marriage was not merely permitted, but was legally imposed with a force that is clearly expressed in Deut 25:5-10. With that background in mind, he may question, he may doubt, but he may not exclude, pending actual historical evidence to the contrary.
In a monumental piece of research, published in French in 1982, 5 Jacques Masson reviews the ancient argument of a levirate marriage of Joseph's mother. To deepen his analysis of the last few generations in the two genealogies, he first presents a study of all the preceding generations. The wealth of material that he brings to bear on the question and the painstaking care with which he has sifted and arranged the data make his book a classic work on the subject. Masson does not prove that there was in this case a levirate marriage, but he so increases the area of discussion and so challenges the reader to continue sifting the data that his work cannot be ignored in any serious treatment of the question. Not only does this book make clear the complexity of the question, it also brings the reader closer up to the history behind the Gospel text and behind the discussion of the text that has gone on now for nineteen centuries.
The possibility of a levirate marriage as presented by Julius Africanus was questioned by Jacques-Paul Migne, 6 Urban Holzmeister, 7 and others on the ground that the Law of the Levirate did not apply to uterine brothers, seeing that neither did a uterine brother carry the same male seed nor would he keep the heredity within the same family. Masson sees general validity in this objection, but he finds high probability in a levirate marriage of Joseph's mother with a relative of her deceased husband who had a common ancestor with him. Such a common ancestor, according to the two genealogies, would obviously be David, but more proximately he finds Salathiel and even more proximately Eliud/Esli.
Masson argues as follows. Jechonias, having no son, adopted Salathiel, husband of his daughter and son of Neri, who was descended from David through Nathan. Salathiel thus became the legal son and successor of Jechonias. By the Law of the Levirate, the name of Salathiel'a biological father disappears from the genealogy and the name of Jechonias appears. Salathiel becomes a common ancestor of both Jacob and Eli.
More proximately, both Jacob and Eli are descendants of Eliud/Esli. Achim of Matthew's genealogy died without children, and Naggai of Luke's genealogy begot Eliud/Esli as Achim's legal son. Matthew's Eleazar was the eldest son of Eliud/Esli. Naum was a younger son. Thus a levirate adoption by Jechonias and later levirate marriages raising up seed to Achim and to Jacob, the legal. father of Joseph, solve the contradiction of the two fathers of Joseph and the disparate lines of descent from David to Joseph. 8
Masson's careful argumentation leading up to these conclusions should not be lightly dismissed. 9 The data that he presents can indeed be interpreted in different ways, but there is a substratum of truth that should not be ignored. The question, however, broadens at this point from an elementary base into issues related to the second solution, that of a possible genealogy of Mary, which Masson takes up in lesser depth.
2. MARIAN GENEALOGY. The theory of a Marian genealogy in its simplest form is based on a reading of Matthew and Luke such that Matthew presents the ancestry of Joseph and Luke presents the ancestry of Mary. The theory is based on the fact of the Virginal Conception, which both Matthew and Luke clearly present, and on the reasoning that, because of this fact, the real biological descent of Jesus is only through his mother. If Matthew gives the legal descent of Jesus, and if Luke gives the real descent, then Luke gives the genealogy of Mary.
He goes on:
3. LEGAL ADOPTION. Urban Holzmeister transforms a Lapide's theory into a theory of adoption. The reading of Lk 3:23 as directly presenting a biological bond of Jesus with Eli, to the exclusion of Joseph, he finds to be unconvincing and in violence to the text. But, he says, if Mary was an only child, as we have every reason to believe, it would have been entirely in keeping with Old Testament law and custom for her father to adopt her husband and transfer to him all of his rights and possessions. If this happened, then the genealogy of Luke could well be materially the genealogy of Mary, but formally (and gramatically) the genealogy of Joseph, who had inherited Mary's ancestry from her father by way of adoption. Hence, all of the names in Luke's genealogy beginning with Eli are ancestors of Mary, but she is not named. He finds a precedent for this kind of adoption in 1 Chron 2:34. Sesan had no sons, so he gave his daughter (unnamed) in marriage to his Egyptian servant Jeraa, and she brought forth to him (Sesan) a son named Ethei. Thus Ethei was the son of Sesan through his unnamed daughter and his adopted (and named) Egyptian son-in-law.
The theory of "special adoption" proposed by Holzmeister and others replaces the theory of "generic adoption" held for a time by St. Augustine of Hippo which contemplated the (childhood) adoption of Joseph by Eli. St. Augustine withdrew this theory in favor of the theory of levirate marriage after he had seen and studied the solution of Julius Africanus. 27
Jacques Masson rejects Holzmeister's theory of the adoption of St. Joseph by the father of the Blessed Virgin Mary on the ground that Holzmeister resorted to this to save the historicity of the text, since he was convinced that the Law of the Levirate could not have applied to uterine brothers. Masson resolves Holzmeister's problem with the provision of Jewish law that the two successive husbands of Joseph's mother need not have been uterine brothers but rather could have been close relatives descended from a common male ancestor. Nevertheless, Masson does not really exclude the legal adoption of Joseph as a possibility. In fact, Masson readily admits the possibility in general of the adoption of a son-in-law in the Jewish law and customs of the times, and he includes an instance of it (Salathiel) in his own explanation. 28
Holzmeister's idea that Joseph was adopted by Eli, the father of Mary, is untenable in Masson's estimation, because, according to St. John Damascene, Joachim (son of Barpanther, son of Panther, son of Levi) was Mary's father. But Patrizzi, studying the same testimony of John Damascene, concluded that Joseph was Mary's uncle; 29 and Masson does not refute Patrizzi's reasoning. The data can be interpreted differently, and Eli may even be Joachim.
If Mary was an only child, Masson cannot logically exclude that her father might have arranged her marriage to her cousin Joseph and then adopted him in keeping with Jewish law and custom. But that would make the genealogy in Luke the real ancestry of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as Holzmeister maintains. The two theories tend to merge in the sense that even for Masson the names in Luke's genealogy from Levi, father of Matthat, all the way back to Adam are also the ancestors of Mary. Only Eli and Matthat are exclusive ancestors of Joseph in the theory of Masson.
Here, again, the idea of levirate marriage appears in a more sublime way. Mary conceived without male seed by the intervention of the Holy Spirit. Thus was raised up a descendant to Eli (Joachim), to David, and to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob according to the promises. Joseph appears as adopted son-in-law of Eli (Joachim) and as servant of the Holy Spirit, inheriting the promises in a spiritual way.
4. CONSANGUINITY. St. Jerome affirms that Mary was a close relative of Joseph, and, therefore, a member of the tribe of Judah and of the family of David. This testimony is reinforced by St. Ambrose, Tertullian, St. John Chrysostom, and St. John Damascene. The Fathers of the Church almost unanimously defend the Davidic descent of Mary. 30
Cornelius a Lapide expounds an elaboration of the Marian theory whereby both genealogies present the ancestry of Mary. Still commenting on Lk 3:23, he affirms that, while Eli (of Luke's list) was the father of Mary, Matthan (of Matthew's list) was the biological grandfather of both Joseph and Mary, because Jacob was the brother of Anne, the mother of Mary. By a Lapide's theory, Matthew gives the ancestry of Mary through her mother Anne, but Anne's brother Jacob is mentioned in the list instead of Anne, just as Joseph is mentioned instead of Mary. Thus the customary male genealogical tenor is observed and the maternal ancestry of Mary is retained. In this way, concludes a Lapide, both genealogies express the real (biological) ancestry of Jesus.
In defense of the idea that Mary and Joseph could have been cousins, a Lapide notes that according to Num 36:6-10 women who are heiresses of their parents are ordered to marry, not only within the same tribe, but also within the same kindred and closely-related family, lest the inheritance pass to outsiders. Mary seemingly was an only child.
A Lapide maintains that, by their respective genealogies, Matthew and Luke show that Jesus was son and heir of David by a double title, by descent from Solomon, who reigned after David, and by descent from Nathan, who was next to Solomon in order to the throne. He cites Ambrose, Jerome, Theodoretus, Jeremiah, Bernard, and Suarez as holding that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a descendant of David through Solomon and therefore, he says, through the genealogy of her mother, as presented by Matthew.
Patrizzi maintains that both genealogies are those of Joseph by levirate marriage; yet they both reflect the ancestry of Mary and the biological descent of Jesus from King David because of the blood-relationship between Mary and Joseph. St. John Damascene, Andrew of Crete, Hugo Grotius, and others had presented explanations to show this which Patrizzi finds to be inexact. He prefers the explanation of Possini, Zaccaria, and others according to which Joseph was actually the paternal uncle of Mary and the brother of her father Joachim. He finds this explanation to be in conformity with the data on Mary's family provided by St. Epiphanius and also with the testimony of Julius Africanus, who says that Joseph was the third son of Jacob, and with some very early Christian records. Thus Joachim, Cleophas, and Joseph were the three sons of the last Jacob in Matthew's genealogy. Marriage of an uncle with his niece would seem to have been forbidden by Jewish law, but Patrizzi maintains that some exceptions were made, especially by way of the Law of the Levirate, since Joachim and Joseph were brothers. He cites also the case of Aristobulus, King of the Jews, whose uncle Absalom became his son-in-law. 31
Fillion in the early twentieth century agreed with a Lapide that St. Anne, the mother of the Virgin Mary, was the sister of Jacob and the aunt of St. Joseph. Masson, after further genealogical studies, concludes that Mary and Joseph were second cousins on her father Joachim's side, inasmuch as Levi in Luke's genealogy was the great-grandfather of Joseph and the great-great grandfather of Mary. But Masson also agrees with a Lapide that St. Anne was the sister of Jacob and the aunt of St. Joseph. Therefore, according to Masson, Mary and Joseph were first cousins on her mother's side. 32
John F. McCarthy
A fuller reading of the entire article shed some good light on the topic at hand. Sorry i am not meaning to argue from a site, but maybe this will get the ball rolling on a topic for which I am not an expert, but as i suspected, the information is not one sided and can explain some of the so-called glaring contradictions.
And last but not least all of this examination precludes the fact of inspiration and divine guidance in the process, something that cannot be ruled out simply because we dont like it.
More than not, more information by those versed in these matters tends to shed light so that the so-called contradictions become nothing more than alternate explanations where enough information is not present to nail something down excally at present.
A couple of other interesting points.
the distinction here between believing what is offered in the geneologies, and some of the information that is not EXCALLY known to us in detail would have been easily available to the Jew of that day. Some of the specific details of the legalities and who was descent from whom, so as to not even be a topic of discussion or heated debate as it is now.
secondly it is interestiong to note you and I are arguing minutia in realation to obvious information, that is, we are not searching for the entire geneology, but some minor details that were probably easly known and available to the Jew of that day and all its legal ramifications
As stated before they are hardly reasons for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, muchless as a failure, as will be seen when we start to dicusss the specific messianic prophicies
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Brian, posted 12-21-2009 9:06 AM Brian has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 4160 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 13 of 427 (539987)
12-21-2009 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Brian
12-20-2009 6:33 PM


Re: Immaculate deception
There's a nice little clue in Paul's 1 Timothy 1:3-4 as to the construction of Jesus' ancestors.
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines
any longer 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work*which is
by faith.
Is there any significance to this in that Paul is thought not to have written Timothy? All of the Gospels were written post Paul's ministry so I wonder if the emphasis on geneologies can be dated to some point. Perhaps all it does it date Timothy.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 12-20-2009 6:33 PM Brian has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 427 (539990)
12-21-2009 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by hooah212002
12-20-2009 3:43 PM


Son of God
I think in Christian theology Jesus Christ is the "Son of God" in the sense that he is a seperate personhood of God from the Father (YHWH) and that the title "Son" is the closest human relationship which expresses his relation to the father.
However his lineage is still supposed to hold because the "Son of God", the second personhood of the triumvirate Godhead has two natures: one divine, one human. Its divine nature is the fully divine "Son" who resides in eternity with the Father. Its human nature is the fully human Jesus, a Nazarene Jew who is the descendant of the earlier King David.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by hooah212002, posted 12-20-2009 3:43 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 15 of 427 (540028)
12-21-2009 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Jazzns
12-21-2009 10:53 AM


Re: Jesus, Interrupted
Just quickly on how Luke's genealogy could be Mary's. It is because Jew's always mentioned men in the genealogies. And so if he did follow the jewish traditions , then it is normal that we find Joseph's name instead of mary's.
Note that Mathew didn't follow those rules since their are a couple of women's in his genealogy.
EDIT: BTW, it's funny because the answersingenesis.org psted a feedback last week precisely concerning Jesus's lineage. I find it to be very pertaining to the OP's objections to the genealogies and so I'll give the link here: Could Jesus Inherit the Kingdom? | Answers in Genesis
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Jazzns, posted 12-21-2009 10:53 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Iblis, posted 12-21-2009 6:10 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 19 by Jazzns, posted 12-21-2009 10:49 PM slevesque has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024