Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

All right Christians I need some help.


White Crane Feather

Recommended Posts

So as most of you know I am not Christian. I do consider Jesus one of my heros, but I am unable to reconcile the doctrine of him being gods only avatar upon earth, but that's not where I need your help. My wife is Christian, and all three of my boys are being raised as Christian. This is a premarital agreement well over 12 years ago that I intend to honor. I do not have hang ups about religions. It Doesn't bother me a bit because I know we all make our own decisions in the end anyway. I'm actually glad for the structure and education.

Now. I'm embarking myself on an intensive bible study. I have highly intelligent Christian friends here and I'm even impressed by the knowledge of even some of the atheists here..... Some of them :D :D :D

I want to discuss theological perspectives. As I run across them. I have no interest in the usual debate. Spiritual vs non spiritual. Most of you should know me by now. But I am interested in theological debate even from educated atheists that want to take a shot. I know once debate begins it Dosn't want to stop. I would ask that if I say "lets move on" that we do it. It means that I have another question.

Please understand. This is not an attempt to discredit Christianity. This is an attempt to gain knowledge to teach Christianity to my children in accordance with my wife's wishes. I want to be fully emersed. I'm not going anywhere as long as the mobile version is working, it might take a few years. Please debate amongst yourself I want to read it, but if you are a Christian don't get locked into the usual garbage and help me out. If you have been around these forums, you know I'm in for the long haul. I do not intend to express my own opinion, I want to see yours.

First question. Sorry you know I'm a logical person if something Dosn't make sense to me I have to ask.

The genealogy of Christ. Mathew 1:16

Abraham to Jesus. The genealogy takes us through Joseph's line, but not Mary's. How is the a genealogy the line of David but Jesus is not really Joseph's son?

I know this looks like a standard issue trying to discredit, it's not, I'm not concerned with any of that. It's just the first thing that pops up in my mind.

There is a second question already. I'm going to have to read very slowly I see now. The last time read this the angle came to Joseph but there was no mention of a dream. I don't remember the version I was reading, but now I'm using the new American bible. Kindle :D

Edited by White Crane Feather
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does rather contradict the literal belief in the "virgin birth" that some branches (Catholicism particularly, of course) interpret literally, doesn't it. I suppose the explanation is that all that was, as with so much, added later, even if it does directly contradict some of what came before. Wikipedia (the Free Encyclopedia) offers this explanation ( http://en.wikipedia....f_Jesus#Matthew )

The Gospel of Matthew (c 80-85) begins with a genealogy leading from Abraham to Joseph, but then calls Joseph "the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."[1:16] In the original text in Greek, "of whom" is (feminine singular), clearly showing that the phrase refers to Mary, not to Joseph or to Mary and Joseph together.[43][44][45] The book continues:

18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
21
She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus,for he will save his people from their sins."
22
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
23
"Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us).
24
When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife,
25
but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

— Matthew 1: 18-25

Matthew states that Mary was found to be pregnant "before they came together", while she was "betrothed" to Joseph, and that Joseph did not have marital relations with her before the child was born

although that's not really much of an answer is it, as that discredits all the painstaking efforts to spell out the genealogy of Joseph. i think the problem came because they'd got bogged down with the problem with sin arising from being born of a woman, and they thought they'd come up with a clever get-out, but they didn't seem to have really thought it through.

Edited by Admiral Rhubarb
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does rather contradict the literal belief in the "virgin birth" that some branches (Catholicism particularly, of course) interpret literally, doesn't it. I suppose the explanation is that all that was, as with so much, added later, even if it does directly contradict some of what came before. Wikipedia (the Free Encyclopedia) offers this explanation ( http://en.wikipedia....f_Jesus#Matthew )

The Gospel of Matthew (c 80-85) begins with a genealogy leading from Abraham to Joseph, but then calls Joseph "the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."[1:16] In the original text in Greek, "of whom" is (feminine singular), clearly showing that the phrase refers to Mary, not to Joseph or to Mary and Joseph together.[43][44][45] The book continues:

18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
21
She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus,for he will save his people from their sins."
22
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
23
"Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us).
24
When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife,
25
but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

— Matthew 1: 18-25

Matthew states that Mary was found to be pregnant "before they came together", while she was "betrothed" to Joseph, and that Joseph did not have marital relations with her before the child was born

although that's not really much of an answer is it, as that discredits all the painstaking efforts to spell out the genealogy of Joseph. i think the problem came because they'd got bogged down with the problem with sin arising from being born of a woman, and they thought they'd come up with a clever get-out, but they didn't seem to have really thought it through.

Thank you so much. So soon. Awesome I did add to that a bit can you take another look at my edit. Was I reading a version then that did not include the dream part or is it just my memory?

Edited by White Crane Feather
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hezekiah. I got an ancestor that fought in the AWI named Hezekiah.

Do I believe that Hezekiah was a blood line relative of Christ and a King and that I somehow share this magical blood merely because one of my ancestors was thusly named? No.

If you worry too much about the constructed blood line then you may miss the point that Christ was attempting to make.

That camels love passing through the eye of the needle.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hezekiah. I got an ancestor that fought in the AWI named Hezekiah.

Do I believe that Hezekiah was a blood line relative of Christ and a King and that I somehow share this magical blood merely because one of my ancestors was thusly named? No.

If you worry too much about the constructed blood line then you may miss the point that Christ was attempting to make.

That camels love passing through the eye of the needle.

Unfortunately my mind will pass through every needle, but I do understand what you meant. I'm that way once I'm hyper focused. Thanks for your response. I love your avatar by the way. We have a white rabbit.

Edited by White Crane Feather
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First question. Sorry you know I'm a logical person if something Dosn't make sense to me I have to ask.

The genealogy of Christ. Mathew 1:16

Abraham to Jesus. The genealogy takes us through Joseph's line, but not Mary's. How is the a genealogy the line of David but Jesus is not really Joseph's son?

I know this looks like a standard issue trying to discredit, it's not, I'm not concerned with any of that. It's just the first thing that pops up in my mind.

There is a second question already. I'm going to have to read very slowly I see now. The last time read this the angle came to Joseph but there was no mention of a dream. I don't remember the version I was reading, but now I'm using the new American bible. Kindle :D

Hi there, White Crane. Hope it's all well and good. I'd like to offer two options for the answer to your first question:

1 - The genealogy in Matthew is of Mary, and that Joseph also happens to be of the line of David. This reasoning is based on the fact that women are mentioned four times in this genealogy. This is not common in genealogies of the time, and suggests that it might be about Mary's lineage. This is supported by another genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3, which dates from Joseph all the way to Adam. No women are mentioned in this genealogy, only men, and the names in the genealogy are somewhat different between the two, thus suggesting Matthew's genealogy is Mary's, and Luke's genealogy is Joseph's.

2 - By rights of the customs of the day, on pledging to be married (and subsequently getting married), Mary became "property" of Joseph, and any belongings she had, including offspring from then forth, could be claimed as the property of Joseph, thus the child could be "adopted" (for lack of a better word) into the house of Joseph, which then makes Jesus the son of Joseph, the son of etc all the way back to Abraham. This second approach may give rise to the claim that Matthew and Luke's genealogy are a "contradiction", but this is easily accounted for. Due to parchment being expensive, it was a custom of the day to often selectively choose who went in a genealogy, and this was often left to the person dictating based on how important a figure was in the genealogy. Naturally not everyone has the same idea of what constitutes an "important" figure, and so genealogies didn't always match from different authors, and depending on the traditions of where the lineage was drawn from, it could include two vastly different sets of names. But the names didn't matter so much as the link to the past and the claim of being a descendant of David.

Personally, I tend to lean towards the first approach. Hope it helps :tu:

~ Regards, PA

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi there, White Crane. Hope it's all well and good. I'd like to offer two options for the answer to your first question:

1 - The genealogy in Matthew is of Mary, and that Joseph also happens to be of the line of David. This reasoning is based on the fact that women are mentioned four times in this genealogy. This is not common in genealogies of the time, and suggests that it might be about Mary's lineage. This is supported by another genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3, which dates from Joseph all the way to Adam. No women are mentioned in this genealogy, only men, and the names in the genealogy are somewhat different between the two, thus suggesting Matthew's genealogy is Mary's, and Luke's genealogy is Joseph's.

2 - By rights of the customs of the day, on pledging to be married (and subsequently getting married), Mary became "property" of Joseph, and any belongings she had, including offspring from then forth, could be claimed as the property of Joseph, thus the child could be "adopted" (for lack of a better word) into the house of Joseph, which then makes Jesus the son of Joseph, the son of etc all the way back to Abraham. This second approach may give rise to the claim that Matthew and Luke's genealogy are a "contradiction", but this is easily accounted for. Due to parchment being expensive, it was a custom of the day to often selectively choose who went in a genealogy, and this was often left to the person dictating based on how important a figure was in the genealogy. Naturally not everyone has the same idea of what constitutes an "important" figure, and so genealogies didn't always match from different authors, and depending on the traditions of where the lineage was drawn from, it could include two vastly different sets of names. But the names didn't matter so much as the link to the past and the claim of being a descendant of David.

Personally, I tend to lean towards the first approach. Hope it helps :tu:

~ Regards, PA

Awesome... thank you. More to come. But my phone's battery is out and I'm on a tablet. I hate typing on these things, and it's mid night in three mintes. I knkw... strange but every thing is more efficient on my little apple. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi there, White Crane. Hope it's all well and good. I'd like to offer two options for the answer to your first question:

1 - The genealogy in Matthew is of Mary, and that Joseph also happens to be of the line of David. This reasoning is based on the fact that women are mentioned four times in this genealogy. This is not common in genealogies of the time, and suggests that it might be about Mary's lineage. This is supported by another genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3, which dates from Joseph all the way to Adam. No women are mentioned in this genealogy, only men, and the names in the genealogy are somewhat different between the two, thus suggesting Matthew's genealogy is Mary's, and Luke's genealogy is Joseph's.

2 - By rights of the customs of the day, on pledging to be married (and subsequently getting married), Mary became "property" of Joseph, and any belongings she had, including offspring from then forth, could be claimed as the property of Joseph, thus the child could be "adopted" (for lack of a better word) into the house of Joseph, which then makes Jesus the son of Joseph, the son of etc all the way back to Abraham. This second approach may give rise to the claim that Matthew and Luke's genealogy are a "contradiction", but this is easily accounted for. Due to parchment being expensive, it was a custom of the day to often selectively choose who went in a genealogy, and this was often left to the person dictating based on how important a figure was in the genealogy. Naturally not everyone has the same idea of what constitutes an "important" figure, and so genealogies didn't always match from different authors, and depending on the traditions of where the lineage was drawn from, it could include two vastly different sets of names. But the names didn't matter so much as the link to the past and the claim of being a descendant of David.

Personally, I tend to lean towards the first approach. Hope it helps :tu:

~ Regards, PA

It does however say "Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary" (at least according to the KJV, which i always take as authoritarian.) Although the line of descent in Judaism is traditionally regarded as being through the mother's side, it appears that that hasn't necessarily always been a hard and fast rule, particularly in Jesus' time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome... thank you. More to come. But my phone's battery is out and I'm on a tablet. I hate typing on these things, and it's mid night in three mintes. I knkw... strange but every thing is more efficient on my little apple. :)

No worries. Once I actually made the extremely anti-Christian hypothesis here that Mary got pregnant either through prostitution or an illicit love affair based on the other women in Matthew's genealogy. Tamar masqueraded as a prostitute, Rahab was a prostitute, Ruth had a steamy romance with Boaz, so was the author trying to subtly tell us something about Mary? I just wanted to start people thinking about things, but I think the real reason was to point out that while Mary may have found favour in being chosen to give birth to the son of God, she was as sinful as the rest of us and God was going to use that which is imperfect for his perfect plan (Catholics won't agree with me on this, though, with the whole Immaculate Conception and all that). Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First it's good to keep in mind that the Gospels didn't originally intend to be stacked together right next to each other like they are. It actually leads to a number of "contradictions" between them, because it's like having four WWII vets sitting in a circle and telling you about the European Theatre. You're not saying that you don't believe one of them over the other, but four ninety-year-olds are going to have a few skips in the track.

Also each Gospel is tailored to a different audience based on its details.

Matthew was a Jew and wrote his gospel for Jews and reminded everyone at every turn of Jesus' Jewishness. This is why his genealogy goes back to Abraham and does these loop-the-loops to establish a Davidic line. Matthew is also the Gospel where he'll break off and speak in parenthesis exactly which Old Testament messianic prophecy is being fulfilled by a certain act.

Mark spent time traveling with Peter and is established to be the oldest, set-in-stone, this-is-what-happened Gospel. It's got the fewest details which the other Gospels filled in for it, but is the best starting place for the sake of the story. It's also the one that had a final bit crudely pasted on to it at the very end that all of these snake handlers get their instructions from.

Luke was a Greek and emphasized Jesus as being here for everyone, not just an incarnate God for the Jews. This is why Luke doesn't stop with Abraham, but takes his genealogy all the way back to Adam. It also has some more elements that you'd find in Greek demigod myths, like the Nativity and the hero origins story bits.

John is the writer you go to if you wanna get the behind the curtain look at what's going on in the story. It's the most spiritual of the Gospels and the one that emphasize universal love and hope and forgiveness and so on. It also looks at Jesus as the incarnate Word-- no ancient genealogy, but an opening scene where the soul of Christ is witnessing the dawn of creation.

---

Now, the reason why Jesus is included in Joseph's line in Matthew was to cement this Davidic connection, albeit through adoption. There were other materials that came out around the same time that also linked Mary's line to David and gave her a bit more of a back story, but it wouldn't have done much good. The reason that naming the child and inheriting the Jewish religious identity comes from the mother's side is because it was believed that the female line was the spiritual line. Jesus' raw spirituality and potential came from Mary.

Meanwhile, the paternal line was responsible for temporal authority and control over one's spirituality. Look at the Nephilim for example: their power comes from the free will and the Divine Spark of a soul they received because of their human mothers, but their ability to draw on that power and bring it to bear was because of their angelic fathers.

But back to Joseph. Keep in mind also that the genetic identify of the father wasn't necessarily the definitive father in the culture. By Mosaic Law, if a man died without a child, it was the responsibility of his brother to father a child with his widow out of the love they bore the deceased. The child would, for all intents and purposes, be recognized as the only child of the dead man and the sole inheritor of his estates. And while the "uncle" would be responsible for supporting the child, he had no claim over him as his own.

It's the mirror of this scenario in the Immaculate Conception. It doesn't matter that Joseph wasn't the biological father of Jesus. Joseph was the one married to Jesus' mother, the one who was there at the birth, and the one who moved the family based on a vision to Egypt to keep them safe. We think of adoption as a matter of legal paperwork. Joseph had no question who was his son.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First question. Sorry you know I'm a logical person if something Dosn't make sense to me I have to ask.

The genealogy of Christ. Mathew 1:16

Abraham to Jesus. The genealogy takes us through Joseph's line, but not Mary's. How is the a genealogy the line of David but Jesus is not really Joseph's son?

I know this looks like a standard issue trying to discredit, it's not, I'm not concerned with any of that. It's just the first thing that pops up in my mind.

Hi White Crane Feather, I don't think I have ever debated with you. To attempt to answer you question, I would offer this:

While I agree with PA's first response, I would like to open it up more. The author of Matthew wrote to a primarily Jewish audience. He does not explain Jewish customs like Mark does. The author repeatedly identifies that Jesus is the Messiah that the Jews have been waiting for. The author continuously points to Jesus fulfilling Messianic prophecies written about Him both in the Law and the Prophets. It should be no surprise, then, that Matthew referenced the bloodline of the Messiah in the most direct fashion possible. Luke, on the other hand, wrote for accuracy of details, people, and events.

The author of Matthew likely wrote to Jewish Christians specifically, with the intent on encouraging them to stay strong in the faith and do not go back to Judaism. This can be evidenced in the disputes between Jesus and the religious leaders as well as the many references to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in Matthew. It seems like Matthew writes more on this topic than the other gospel authors. However, the author's motive is implicit while the author of Luke is more explicit about why he writes (an accurate account).

I hope this was of some help at least.

There is a second question already. I'm going to have to read very slowly I see now. The last time read this the angle came to Joseph but there was no mention of a dream. I don't remember the version I was reading, but now I'm using the new American bible. Kindle :D

Yes, interesting observation. Matthew writes the account of the angel coming to Joseph in a dream while Luke only accounts for an angel coming to Mary. This seems to me to be because Joseph was dead at the time and could not confirm his account. Again, it seems like Matthew took more liberty than Luke. However, this may also be because Matthew wanted to show why Joseph, a descendant of David, was worthy of adopting Jesus as his own son. This, in my opinion, is more likely the reason why Matthew wrote about this account and not Luke.

Thank you for the challenging questions! Have a good day!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So as most of you know I am not Christian. I do consider Jesus one of my heros, but I am unable to reconcile the doctrine of him being gods only avatar upon earth, but that's not where I need your help. My wife is Christian, and all three of my boys are being raised as Christian. This is a premarital agreement well over 12 years ago that I intend to honor. I do not have hang ups about religions. It Doesn't bother me a bit because I know we all make our own decisions in the end anyway. I'm actually glad for the structure and education.

Now. I'm embarking myself on an intensive bible study. I have highly intelligent Christian friends here and I'm even impressed by the knowledge of even some of the atheists here..... Some of them :D :D :D

I want to discuss theological perspectives. As I run across them. I have no interest in the usual debate. Spiritual vs non spiritual. Most of you should know me by now. But I am interested in theological debate even from educated atheists that want to take a shot. I know once debate begins it Dosn't want to stop. I would ask that if I say "lets move on" that we do it. It means that I have another question.

Please understand. This is not an attempt to discredit Christianity. This is an attempt to gain knowledge to teach Christianity to my children in accordance with my wife's wishes. I want to be fully emersed. I'm not going anywhere as long as the mobile version is working, it might take a few years. Please debate amongst yourself I want to read it, but if you are a Christian don't get locked into the usual garbage and help me out. If you have been around these forums, you know I'm in for the long haul. I do not intend to express my own opinion, I want to see yours.

First question. Sorry you know I'm a logical person if something Dosn't make sense to me I have to ask.

The genealogy of Christ. Mathew 1:16

Abraham to Jesus. The genealogy takes us through Joseph's line, but not Mary's. How is the a genealogy the line of David but Jesus is not really Joseph's son?

I know this looks like a standard issue trying to discredit, it's not, I'm not concerned with any of that. It's just the first thing that pops up in my mind.

There is a second question already. I'm going to have to read very slowly I see now. The last time read this the angle came to Joseph but there was no mention of a dream. I don't remember the version I was reading, but now I'm using the new American bible. Kindle :D

The virgin birth could be similar to the ancient Greek beliefs that if a women had a dream of a certain God before getting pregnant, the child would be that God`s son. The angels did come to Joseph in a dream also.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it helpful to remember that so much of what's in the bible was written decades or hundreds of years after the fact? So there's going to be gaps in information and probably contradictions as well. As I understand it the bible wasn't written as a straight narrative, but is a collection of "books" written at different times with different influences that was eventually pulled together and codified by the Council of Nicea. Which makes it no less inspirational, but perhaps less useful as a historical document. I've always thought the emphasis should be on the teachings, not the history, though the history does provide context.

Thought I'm not Christian, I find many of the teachings applicable to daily life, they provide sort of a guideline or ethical code that can help one navigate society or provide guidance for ethical dilemmas.

Edited by Beany
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember that the Bible is a collection of manuscripts, written by different authors at different times and in different places and in different languages. It has undergone editing to make it look more consistent.

Although I'm pagan, I would say "focus on the message and not on the details."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings, WCF

Since you mention the New American Bible. I assume you already know that that is a Roman Catholic Bible... and now that I think of it, the pre-nup you mention is a feature of Catholic "mixed marriages." I don't know whether that's your situation or not. The latest Revised Edition of the NAB is available free online here:

http://www.usccb.org/bible/

The specific question of Jospeh's genealogy in Mathhew has been covered by other posters. The mother's Jewishness makes her children Jewish; my understanding is that the father's line determines other issues. Note that many of the people in the geneaology are legendary figures; it is not the case that Joseph could have known that he had descended from these people even in they were real people.

As to the angel and dream business (you "asked," even if it wasn't an official "question"), that is covered in Matthew 1:20, a long verse. "Angel of the Lord" is a Jewish Biblical term; it often means God himself operating temporally, rather than a sepearate being, such as Gabriel.

It is the narrator, however, not AoL, who states plainly that Jesus does not arise from sexual intercourse, 1: 22-25. The "prophecy" is a mutilated version of Isaiah 7:14. The Septuagint used the Greek word for "virgin" instead of the actual Hebrew, "young woman." Regardless, the passage in Isaiah is not a Messianic prediction, but the designation of an indicator life for a political and military prophecy, over and done with centuries before Mary had a child.

BTW, I'm assuming that even though I am neither an atheist nor a Christian, I still get to play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember that the Bible is a collection of manuscripts, written by different authors at different times and in different places and in different languages. It has undergone editing to make it look more consistent.

Although I'm pagan, I would say "focus on the message and not on the details."

A lot of people claim that the Bible's been edited and that's actually a real stretch.

Since the Bible's been in circulation, it has actually been painstakingly preserved. Even in the old Hebrew, if something looked like a scribal or grammatical error, it was intentionally left in and the correction put in brackets.

Really, the closest thing to editing occurred when there was difficulty translating from one of the ancient languages, and even then the attempt was made to stay true to the text. The word begat, for example, wasn't a word until the King James translation because the specific grammatical form in the Hebrew text didn't exist in English.

Nor was any part of the Text not in either Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, all three of which were so accessible during the biblical period that no one literate found the Text inaccessible. And the only adjustments made to the canon to make it "look consistent" was the choice to not canonize the Apocrypha, because it had nothing to do with a messianic tradition. But that's understandable, give Jews didn't hold the books as strict canon either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries. Once I actually made the extremely anti-Christian hypothesis here that Mary got pregnant either through prostitution or an illicit love affair based on the other women in Matthew's genealogy. Tamar masqueraded as a prostitute, Rahab was a prostitute, Ruth had a steamy romance with Boaz, so was the author trying to subtly tell us something about Mary? I just wanted to start people thinking about things, but I think the real reason was to point out that while Mary may have found favour in being chosen to give birth to the son of God, she was as sinful as the rest of us and God was going to use that which is imperfect for his perfect plan (Catholics won't agree with me on this, though, with the whole Immaculate Conception and all that).

Wow! I would have never have expected that. Thank you. That will be an interesting thing to remember going back to the OT. Are the genealogies derived from the OT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First it's good to keep in mind that the Gospels didn't originally intend to be stacked together right next to each other like they are. It actually leads to a number of "contradictions" between them, because it's like having four WWII vets sitting in a circle and telling you about the European Theatre. You're not saying that you don't believe one of them over the other, but four ninety-year-olds are going to have a few skips in the track.

Also each Gospel is tailored to a different audience based on its details.

Matthew was a Jew and wrote his gospel for Jews and reminded everyone at every turn of Jesus' Jewishness. This is why his genealogy goes back to Abraham and does these loop-the-loops to establish a Davidic line. Matthew is also the Gospel where he'll break off and speak in parenthesis exactly which Old Testament messianic prophecy is being fulfilled by a certain act.

Mark spent time traveling with Peter and is established to be the oldest, set-in-stone, this-is-what-happened Gospel. It's got the fewest details which the other Gospels filled in for it, but is the best starting place for the sake of the story. It's also the one that had a final bit crudely pasted on to it at the very end that all of these snake handlers get their instructions from.

Luke was a Greek and emphasized Jesus as being here for everyone, not just an incarnate God for the Jews. This is why Luke doesn't stop with Abraham, but takes his genealogy all the way back to Adam. It also has some more elements that you'd find in Greek demigod myths, like the Nativity and the hero origins story bits.

John is the writer you go to if you wanna get the behind the curtain look at what's going on in the story. It's the most spiritual of the Gospels and the one that emphasize universal love and hope and forgiveness and so on. It also looks at Jesus as the incarnate Word-- no ancient genealogy, but an opening scene where the soul of Christ is witnessing the dawn of creation.

---

Now, the reason why Jesus is included in Joseph's line in Matthew was to cement this Davidic connection, albeit through adoption. There were other materials that came out around the same time that also linked Mary's line to David and gave her a bit more of a back story, but it wouldn't have done much good. The reason that naming the child and inheriting the Jewish religious identity comes from the mother's side is because it was believed that the female line was the spiritual line. Jesus' raw spirituality and potential came from Mary.

Meanwhile, the paternal line was responsible for temporal authority and control over one's spirituality. Look at the Nephilim for example: their power comes from the free will and the Divine Spark of a soul they received because of their human mothers, but their ability to draw on that power and bring it to bear was because of their angelic fathers.

But back to Joseph. Keep in mind also that the genetic identify of the father wasn't necessarily the definitive father in the culture. By Mosaic Law, if a man died without a child, it was the responsibility of his brother to father a child with his widow out of the love they bore the deceased. The child would, for all intents and purposes, be recognized as the only child of the dead man and the sole inheritor of his estates. And while the "uncle" would be responsible for supporting the child, he had no claim over him as his own.

It's the mirror of this scenario in the Immaculate Conception. It doesn't matter that Joseph wasn't the biological father of Jesus. Joseph was the one married to Jesus' mother, the one who was there at the birth, and the one who moved the family based on a vision to Egypt to keep them safe. We think of adoption as a matter of legal paperwork. Joseph had no question who was his son.

Excellent material. Thank you. 2 things. 1. Can you give me the exact spot the "material was crudely pasted on". I want to check it out. Also is the material that gave Mary more of a backstory available? I'd like to see it as well.

Thanks. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi White Crane Feather, I don't think I have ever debated with you. To attempt to answer you question, I would offer this:

While I agree with PA's first response, I would like to open it up more. The author of Matthew wrote to a primarily Jewish audience. He does not explain Jewish customs like Mark does. The author repeatedly identifies that Jesus is the Messiah that the Jews have been waiting for. The author continuously points to Jesus fulfilling Messianic prophecies written about Him both in the Law and the Prophets. It should be no surprise, then, that Matthew referenced the bloodline of the Messiah in the most direct fashion possible. Luke, on the other hand, wrote for accuracy of details, people, and events.

The author of Matthew likely wrote to Jewish Christians specifically, with the intent on encouraging them to stay strong in the faith and do not go back to Judaism. This can be evidenced in the disputes between Jesus and the religious leaders as well as the many references to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in Matthew. It seems like Matthew writes more on this topic than the other gospel authors. However, the author's motive is implicit while the author of Luke is more explicit about why he writes (an accurate account).

I hope this was of some help at least.

Yes, interesting observation. Matthew writes the account of the angel coming to Joseph in a dream while Luke only accounts for an angel coming to Mary. This seems to me to be because Joseph was dead at the time and could not confirm his account. Again, it seems like Matthew took more liberty than Luke. However, this may also be because Matthew wanted to show why Joseph, a descendant of David, was worthy of adopting Jesus as his own son. This, in my opinion, is more likely the reason why Matthew wrote about this account and not Luke.

Thank you for the challenging questions! Have a good day!

Great stuff!! So it was a different book then, not version. Luke right? Ok I'll remember that. You probably interacted more with me when my handle was Seeker79.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings, WCF

Since you mention the New American Bible. I assume you already know that that is a Roman Catholic Bible... and now that I think of it, the pre-nup you mention is a feature of Catholic "mixed marriages." I don't know whether that's your situation or not. The latest Revised Edition of the NAB is available free online here:

http://www.usccb.org/bible/

The specific question of Jospeh's genealogy in Mathhew has been covered by other posters. The mother's Jewishness makes her children Jewish; my understanding is that the father's line determines other issues. Note that many of the people in the geneaology are legendary figures; it is not the case that Joseph could have known that he had descended from these people even in they were real people.

As to the angel and dream business (you "asked," even if it wasn't an official "question"), that is covered in Matthew 1:20, a long verse. "Angel of the Lord" is a Jewish Biblical term; it often means God himself operating temporally, rather than a sepearate being, such as Gabriel.

It is the narrator, however, not AoL, who states plainly that Jesus does not arise from sexual intercourse, 1: 22-25. The "prophecy" is a mutilated version of Isaiah 7:14. The Septuagint used the Greek word for "virgin" instead of the actual Hebrew, "young woman." Regardless, the passage in Isaiah is not a Messianic prediction, but the designation of an indicator life for a political and military prophecy, over and done with centuries before Mary had a child.

BTW, I'm assuming that even though I am neither an atheist nor a Christian, I still get to play.

Absolutely. No you it the nail on the head. My wife is catholic, although the promise was made independent of any church pressure. I was a kid in love and I had no problems with Catholics. Still don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About details. Yes I will be asking things that are not message focused. I understand the message I have spent time with the bible before, but I have already learned a lot from the spin offs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent material. Thank you. 2 things. 1. Can you give me the exact spot the "material was crudely pasted on". I want to check it out. Also is the material that gave Mary more of a backstory available? I'd like to see it as well.

Thanks. .

Absolutely.

The stuff in Mark is in chapter 16 verses 14-18. The resurrection just happened, all the Disciples have seen it and all the loose ends are getting wrapped up and then this thing is shoe horned in right before the big finish with the ascension and ET's people come back for him and everything.

Let me check about the Mary material before I end up telling you the wrong source. If I remember right the big reason it didn't get picked up was because the Gnostics got into it like meal worms in a Wheaties box and they had to throw out the whole thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember that the Bible is a collection of manuscripts, written by different authors at different times and in different places and in different languages. It has undergone editing to make it look more consistent.

Although I'm pagan, I would say "focus on the message and not on the details."

I've never had a problem with the message, it's the details that are often so in conflict with one another that makes me crazy. I gave up trying to reconcile the details, for me it's a head/mind thing, and I'm always more comfortable with heart wisdom. That's where I find my truth, my heart, not my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent material. Thank you. 2 things. 1. Can you give me the exact spot the "material was crudely pasted on". I want to check it out. Also is the material that gave Mary more of a backstory available? I'd like to see it as well.

Thanks. .

Found the stuff on Mary I mentioned. It's a text from about 150 called the Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James. It's a bit dubious because it tends to over emphasize Mary's virginity and seems to show up a bit late to the party without much of a traditional following before it. Plus there are a few traditions mentioned that sound like a well-meaning Gentile reporting a Jewish custom to a Greco-Roman audience who are still unclear on what a Jew is exactly.

Ironically, the next best place to look for Mary lore would be the Koran. She actually gets more dedicated content than she does in the Bible. Mohammed really had a soft spot for the Virgin Mother, and while he denies that God literally impregnated her with His Son, he instead concedes that Mary was so worthy of holiness and grace that she became pregnant as a virgin with the Jewish Messiah King by the power of God's will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing in tonight reading. It all seems pretty straight forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.