Jesus - the Lineage

1) What is this "fairly strong historical evidence" that Mary and Joseph (especially Mary) were of the House of David ?2) How does levirate marriage apply ?3) The genealogy in Luke is presented as Joseph's not Mary's. Is there any known example of a genealogy where the genealogy of the wife is presented as that of the husband in any relevant culture ? If not, then why assume that Luke did exactly that ?4) Have you checked the references given, and do they support the idea that Mary's husband would be considered her father's son and listed as such in a genealogy ? What did you find ? (I'll give you a pass on de Vaux, but you should be able to look up the Bible verses easily).

Okay, maybe I'm not recalling correctly here. I was under the impression that Mary and Joseph were just "to be wed" but had not actually yet tied the knot. I could be way off, but if they were not yet married, how is levirate law even close to applicable?
Brad

Well that's the question isn't it ? It could only apply to Mary and Joseph if Mary married Jospeh and Jospeh died or Mary married Joseph's brother and the brother died. Neither of which is mentioned at all.It might be appealed to, to explain a difference in an earlier generation but at best a single levirate marriage could only affect a single entry in the genealogy(it's the job of the husband's brother, so the precedign generations should be unchanged).

I've read some articles that show Matthew may have been written as a satire.The author of Matthew wrote in a magical birth, but then gives a genealogy of an earthly father's line. He made his genealogy come out to 3 sets of 14, for whatever reason. IMO, this author wasn't trying to be accurate.The author of Luke may have provided a truer genealogy, but then he didn't have the magical birth to contend with.Even though the authors didn't, if later Christians wanted to attribute one genealogy to Mary it should have been Matthew's and not Luke's.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Hi Phat,The problem with Joseph marrying into Mary's bloodline is that the prophecy was that the Messiah would be descended through the bloodline of Solomon, this manipulation of the texts removes that bloodline as Mary is said to be descended from Nathan. I honestly do not believe that this was intended to be Mary's geneology at all.What is this 'non-royal' bloodline stuff?Brian.

I am no scholar nor a theologian, but I would give the simple answer that the royal blood has something to do with spiritual (indeed supernatural) transmutation. Of course, belief in a virgin birth is a matter of faith. I can see your point that there are no irrefutable scriptures pointing to the Messiah...apart from the ones that Christian apologists use.A person can be technically (and literally) correct and yet be practically and realistically wrong.Not to nitpick at you and by implication, your sources...BUT....
I don't know if I trust these guys. Its kinda like when the Pharisees told Jesus that it was wrong to heal on the Sabbath. Technically they were right. Practically, they were wrong.It all boils down to what Jesus asked Peter: Who do YOU say that I am?Obviously, some people who study various disciplines can rightly and technically conclude that Jesus may have been an exageration, a compiled legend, and/or a misguided rabbi.The issue, for them, then becomes: What is truth? What is the origin of wisdom? Are we the captains of our collective human ship...the masters of our soul? Was Sinatra right? Should we really do it OUR way?Belief is faith. For some, Jesus becomes alive...more than a historical figure, He becomes alive to them.As I have been discussing with Jar, the question becomes this:Is belief entirely subjective or is it based on an encounter with an objective reality?

Odd that after laying out his genealogy in detail, a quick birth and trip to Egypt, a brief mention at the temple, Joseph has served his purpose and gets the flick. No mention of whether he died, deserted his virgin bride, or minded the ranch while Mum tripped to weddings and checked up on her son.
Of course, you can`t trust a church to leave well enough alone, so the dogma accretions started. Ready for the mental gymnastics?
You can take the Epiphanian view that all those bros and sisters of Jesus were from a previous marriage of Joseph. Or---
the Hieronymian view of Jerome, not content with regarding Mary as an on-going virgin, developed the idea that Joseph had virgo intacta and the family were actually 'cousins' of Jesus. Either way, the genealogy had no bearing on the heritage of Jesus, but you can`t keep a good apologist down.http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jamesbrother.html#jeromeEdited for clarityThis message has been edited by Nighttrain, 08-31-2005 08:40 AM

not to be crass -- but if your wife never put out you'd be looking for a little on the side too...(but really, i see no reason to assume that mary remained a virgin her entire life)

---

אָרַח

How about an answer to Message 16 ?

You know that I am no scholar...and quite lazy! I base my faith on very little scholastics...which is usually derived from human wisdom/critical thinking to be sure, yet usually by non-believers anyway. I cannot (or will not) try and research my beliefs.What is your conclusion? BTW are you a believer or a non- believer?I will be impressed if you are both a believer (In a living Christ)
and a scholar.If you are simply an atheist/agnostic scholar, I am unimopressed with five doctorate degrees, since they all were built on the house of cards known as human wisdom (without God).This message has been edited by Phatboy, 08-31-2005 01:24 PM

I'm not asking you to trust my credentials. I'm asking you to make basic checks on your source rather than relying on your personal bias.Personally I find Christian apologists to be highly unreliable - a case in point being this very question. You'd be better off trusting an atheist scholar who has less of an axe to grind.

Since Phatboy won't critically examine the answers he quotes I'm going to do some chewing on one of them myself. This one: From the listed verses these represent laws on levirate marriageDeuteronomy 25:5-6 (NASB)So the offspring of a levirate marriage could be seen as having two fathers (his legal father and his biological father). But he wouldn't take his wife's lineage. The dead husband's lineage wouldn't change - the whole point of the marriage is to continue it, not replace it. The brother's lineage wouldn't change either - the only way it is relevant is that he must be brother of the deceased (and therefore has the same ancestry).So Jewish a levirate marriage doesn't involve anyone adopting the lineage of their wife. It isn't a "probably" the case - it isn't even POSSIBLY the case.

I am not sure I know what guys you mean. Do you mean the guys that see no Davidic bloodline in Jesus’ genealogy? Why were they practically wrong? The Sabbath is still observed by Jews who view it differently from Christians. Many Jews won’t do anything resembling work on a Saturday, some even set timers on cookers and lights so they don’t have to ‘work’ on the Sabbath. I don’t see why. I think it all boils down to Christians manipulating the Old Testament to try and make Jesus into something he clearly wasn’t. I’m in the first camp. But, why should this have any bearing on the way they view the Bible? If Jesus is alive for you and is your saviour then that’s great, however, it doesn’t mean that the Bible is true about anything. Well, I have yet to meet anyone who became a Christian before they had ever heard of Jesus.Brian.

Chris Weimer(of Ebla fame) does a nice job of explaining variations in the Matthew genealogyPage not foundIf the translators/assemblers of the Qumran Scrolls have it right, the Community was anticipating 2-3 Messiahs.
A. The lay or kingly Davidic Messiah
B. The priestly Aaronic Messiah
C. (possibly) a Mosaic prophetic MessiahRefs-Allegro-Mystery of the Dead Sea Scrolls p167
Vermes-Complete Dead Sea Scrolls-p86Edited for spellingThis message has been edited by Nighttrain, 09-04-2005 03:01 AM

Well, most of us Anglicans and most Catholics would probably fit that description.We get Baptized at birth. Parents and God-Parents stand in for the child during the ceremony and the infant is accepted into the communion.The child is accepted as a Christian from that moment on, but it is also recognized that the child is yet too young to make an informed decision. That takes place later when the child goes through Confirmation. At that time the child goes through a study period and then makes what is hoped to be an informed decision as an adult.Before confirmation, all responsibility lies with the parents, God-parents and community. The Confirmation service is when the child takes full responsibility for his or her own behavior.It is very much related to determining how a person should behave, how they should try to live their lives.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion