Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chris Weimer · 04-23-2005, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Josephus declared Vespasian as the awaited for Messiah, so I guess he didn't even need to be Jewish.

Well, he did say that the Jews in Israel were wrong because they thought the Messiah had to be Jewish.

PhilosopherJay · 04-24-2005, 09:09 PM

At Gabra's site Here , he has the list from 3 Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew from the 14th century. They add the name Avner between Abiud and Eliachim. The fifth seventh would then be Sadoe instead of Achim. This would make Mary the sixth seventh. If Jesus was Mary's husband the generation coming after them would be the start of the seventh and final generations of seven.
Before assuming that they have added the name, we should ask why they should want to make Jesus the sixth seventh? God rested at the end of the sixth day, we may find our rest in Jesus the sixth seventh. That is something the Christians might want to do, but not Jews

It is also possible that this genealogy originally was applied to Mariamne, the second wife of Herod the Great. He would have needed to prove her descent from David in order to legitimize his rule in the eyes of the Jews.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Hello Jay,

Where are you getting the seventh seven from? Aram is the first seven; David is the second seven; Uzziah was the third seven; Jechoniah was the fourth seven; Achim was the fifth seven; Christ, only if Mary is the sixth six, is the sixth seven. Besides, if Joseph was Christ's father (as the Syriacus Sinaiticus has) then he would be the sixth six. Am I miscounting anywhere?

Dharma · 04-25-2005, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Well, he did say that the Jews in Israel were wrong because they thought the Messiah had to be Jewish.

Again, Cyrus the Zoarastrian Persian King was also called a messiah, er, some would say with a small "m". :huh:

credoconsolans · 04-25-2005, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noah

I was reading Louis cable's article entitled "Would You Buy A Used Car From Paul?" and I was struck by the apparent contradictions he popints out beween Paul, Revelations and the Gospels of Luke and Mathew:

Romans 1:3 ~ "Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh," says Paul. Although this statement agrees fully with the one made by Jesus in Revelation 22:16, it flies in the face of everything we are told in the gospels. In Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 we learn that Mary was made pregnant with Jesus not by Joseph, who was of the Davidic line, but by the Holy Ghost. This creates a really big problem for Bible believers. First, although Joseph was of David's line, he was not Jesus' biological father. Second, the Holy Ghost is a spirit and spirits have neither flesh nor blood. Third, "according to the flesh" could not have been referring to Mary's flesh because she was not from David's line. According to the story, she was of the house of Aaron (Luke 1:5), a Levite. So, if the birth narratives are to be believed, Jesus did not come from the seed of David, and Paul told another big lie. If, on the other hand, Revelation 22:16 is true and Paul is right, the writers of Matthew and Luke lied.

I asked a Christian friend about this discrepancy....

I'd like to know what you all think of this.

Thanks,

Yeah, I brought up the same discrepancy with a Born Again friend of mine. I thought it rather telling. He dismissed the whole argument with "Joseph adopted Jesus as many people adopted children in those days, so regardless of whether he was actual blood or not, he now was 'legally' in Joseph's line."

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-25-2005, 09:28 PM

But he wasn't legally in David's line. Royal bloodlines could not be passed through adoption. David's "seed" had to literally be David's genetic descendant. The Messiah cannot be adopted.

Amaleq13 · 04-25-2005, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

But he wasn't legally in David's line. Royal bloodlines could not be passed through adoption. David's "seed" had to literally be David's genetic descendant. The Messiah cannot be adopted.

According to whom?

I think the Christians who accepted the nativity stories in Matthew and/or Luke were perfectly willing to accept this notion.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-26-2005, 07:38 AM

According to Jewish law.

But you're correct that Christians would probably buy the adoption thing.

noah · 04-28-2005, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by credoconsolans

Yeah, I brought up the same discrepancy with a Born Again friend of mine. I thought it rather telling. He dismissed the whole argument with "Joseph adopted Jesus as many people adopted children in those days, so regardless of whether he was actual blood or not, he now was 'legally' in Joseph's line."

Does it say somewhere in the New Testament that Joseph adopted Jesus?

Regards,

Amaleq13 · 04-28-2005, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noah

Does it say somewhere in the New Testament that Joseph adopted Jesus?

I think it is implied when he chooses not to "put her away" upon discovering she is pregnant.

John A. Broussard · 04-28-2005, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

According to Jewish law.

But you're correct that Christians would probably buy the adoption thing.

Is there anything in early Christian writings to this effect? I've made a cursory search and there seems to be no hint of it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-25-2005, 09:28 PM	#45
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	But he wasn't legally in David's line. Royal bloodlines could not be passed through adoption. David's "seed" had to literally be David's genetic descendant. The Messiah cannot be adopted.

04-26-2005, 07:38 AM	#47
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	According to Jewish law. But you're correct that Christians would probably buy the adoption thing.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.