Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8964 total)
38 online now:
caffeine, dwise1, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 34 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 872,990 Year: 4,738/23,288 Month: 1,643/1,286 Week: 310/615 Day: 2/42 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lineage of Jesus
judge
Member (Idle past 4892 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 46 of 82 (50950)
08-18-2003 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Dave901
08-18-2003 5:22 PM


Re: Lineage of Jesus
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Dave901, posted 08-18-2003 5:22 PM Dave901 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by DBlevins, posted 08-19-2003 3:28 AM judge has not yet responded

  
judge
Member (Idle past 4892 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 47 of 82 (50951)
08-18-2003 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by phil
08-18-2003 5:55 PM


Re: Lineage of Jesus
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by phil, posted 08-18-2003 5:55 PM phil has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by phil, posted 08-19-2003 12:10 AM judge has not yet responded

  
phil
Unregistered


Message 48 of 82 (50960)
08-19-2003 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by judge
08-18-2003 11:01 PM


Re: Lineage of Jesus
Well, I am claiming that it is not through Joseph, but through Mary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by judge, posted 08-18-2003 11:01 PM judge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by judge, posted 08-19-2003 1:04 AM You have responded

    
judge
Member (Idle past 4892 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 49 of 82 (50968)
08-19-2003 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by phil
08-19-2003 12:10 AM


Re: Lineage of Jesus
Phil:

Well, I am claiming that it is not through Joseph, but through Mary.

judge:
Can you explain how?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by phil, posted 08-19-2003 12:10 AM phil has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by phil, posted 08-19-2003 1:56 PM judge has not yet responded

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 2224 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 50 of 82 (50972)
08-19-2003 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by judge
08-18-2003 11:00 PM


Re: Lineage of Jesus
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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by judge, posted 08-18-2003 11:00 PM judge has not yet responded

  
phil
Unregistered


Message 51 of 82 (51140)
08-19-2003 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by judge
08-19-2003 1:04 AM


Re: Lineage of Jesus
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by judge, posted 08-19-2003 1:04 AM judge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 08-19-2003 5:25 PM You have responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16048
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 52 of 82 (51175)
08-19-2003 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by phil
08-19-2003 1:56 PM


Re: Lineage of Jesus
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by phil, posted 08-19-2003 1:56 PM phil has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by phil, posted 08-21-2003 10:06 PM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 60 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-22-2003 8:55 PM PaulK has responded

  
Peter
Member
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 53 of 82 (51324)
08-20-2003 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Jake22
07-27-2003 11:42 PM


quote:

If those documents were so heavily redacted by early Christians, a point which (to my understanding) is not supported by proof, then why were references to great pagan men kept in there, primarily when there were overtones of non-Christian divinity? Why would early Christians even keep copies of the histories in existence? It doesn't make sense to me, but I suspect someone will have a good answer

I don't know that this is a good answer, but if you were trying
to 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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Jake22, posted 07-27-2003 11:42 PM Jake22 has not yet responded

  
phil
Unregistered


Message 54 of 82 (51708)
08-21-2003 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by PaulK
08-19-2003 5:25 PM


Re: Lineage of Jesus
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. . .?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 08-19-2003 5:25 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by John, posted 08-22-2003 1:17 AM You have not yet responded
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 08-22-2003 5:44 AM You have not yet responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 82 (51740)
08-22-2003 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by phil
08-21-2003 10:06 PM


Re: Lineage of Jesus
quote:
"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.

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:
Also, if it is through Joseph, then why does Luke write, "He was the son of Joseph, SO IT WAS THOUGHT. . .?"

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?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by phil, posted 08-21-2003 10:06 PM phil has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16048
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 56 of 82 (51772)
08-22-2003 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by phil
08-21-2003 10:06 PM


Re: Lineage of Jesus
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by phil, posted 08-21-2003 10:06 PM phil has not yet responded

  
phil
Unregistered


Message 57 of 82 (51836)
08-22-2003 12:06 PM


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?).


Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by PaulK, posted 08-22-2003 12:18 PM You have not yet responded
 Message 61 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-22-2003 9:32 PM You have not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16048
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 58 of 82 (51839)
08-22-2003 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by phil
08-22-2003 12:06 PM


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 ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by phil, posted 08-22-2003 12:06 PM phil has not yet responded

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 4555 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 59 of 82 (51937)
08-22-2003 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by sup32string
07-27-2003 8:58 AM


Irony
quote:
ignorance is humankinds worst enemy

Do you mind if I quote you on this statement? It should make for a lot of laughs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by sup32string, posted 07-27-2003 8:58 AM sup32string has not yet responded

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 4555 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 60 of 82 (51938)
08-22-2003 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by PaulK
08-19-2003 5:25 PM


Re: Lineage of Jesus
quote:
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 ?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 08-19-2003 5:25 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 08-23-2003 8:38 AM w_fortenberry has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020