Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cege · 07-16-2008, 05:50 PM

As a Christian, I wish that either or both genealogies had been given for Mary, since it's claimed in the NT that Jesus was born by virgin birth, which means only Mary could have been the contributer to Jesus' human derivation. Sadly, that's not the case, and I'm left to grapple with why Joseph's (differing) geneaolgies were even given at all since Joseph made no contribution to Jesus' physical or spiritual person.

thentian · 07-16-2008, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

I'm still not sure how much any of that helps to substantiate the claim. Didn't Luke write it in greek? And even if there was no way to differentiate between "son" and "son-in-law", there is nothing actually pointing towards the Mary/Heli connection. Except of course the need for there to be no contradictions in the bible...

There's also the need to connect Jesus as a descendent of the House of David, specifically through Solomon.

If there was a virgin birth, then Joseph could contribute nothing to Jesus' connection to Davidic ancestry. The human/flesh connection to David's ancestry could only be through Jesus' mother, yet no geneaology connected to Mary is given by the gospel writers, even though it would have been logical for those writers to do so.

Apparently there was a very easy way to differentiate between "son" and "son-in-law" by using pentheros which meant "son-in-law" rather than huios which meant "son".

I'm no expert, either. I just try to comprehend what I can research.

You're wrong about Joseph: he could contribute a legal claim. That is in fact exactly how those who assert this theory explains why Matthew's list if different. According to them Luke shows the natural descent, while Matthew shows the legal.

Cheers!

thentian · 07-16-2008, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

As a Christian, I wish that either or both genealogies had been given for Mary, since it's claimed in the NT that Jesus was born by virgin birth, which means only Mary could have been the contributer to Jesus' human derivation. Sadly, that's not the case, and I'm left to grapple with why Joseph's (differing) geneaolgies were even given at all since Joseph made no contribution to Jesus' physical or spiritual person.

Well, you could go to the catholic site I linked to in an earlier post and see if any of their explanations seem OK to you. They've had almost two thousand years to ponder the question, so it shouldn't be too bad.

If you want my opinion: Luke was in Antioch when he wrote the gospel and this was after the sack of Jerusalem. He wasn't popular among the jews there either, so he didn't have much to go on in the form of genealogies. He knew he had to prove that Jesus was the son of David, though, (and it was his faith that this was so) and... well, he did the best he could.

Cheers!

thentian · 07-16-2008, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reason

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Given enough time and effort, a person can rationalize away any contradiction or inaccuracy in the Bible. It is just that the harmonizations begin to sound implausible after awhile. Perhaps it is just the difference in the way that skeptics and believers think.

A more interesting question is:
How did God inspire the writings? Did he dictate verbally? Did the Biblical authors have visions? Did they begin writing, and intuitively know what to write? How does Divine Inspiration work?

Perhaps it is a derivation of "courting the Muse"?

In that case, I'll take a good modern fiction writer over any of the "inspired" religious writings. Hell, I'll take Shakespeare.

I'll go with Tolkien!

I, too, would dearly like to know what the heck it is supposed to mean when someone says the bible is "The Word of God" or "divinely inspired". It clearly doesn't mean what I think it should mean.

jab · 07-16-2008, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

I love this quote by John Shelby Spong.

"When Martin Luther countered the authority of the infallible pope, he did so in the name of his new authority, the infallible Scriptures. This point of view was generally embraced by all of the Reformation churches. The Bible thus became the paper pope of Protestantism."

I thought the Catholic church did not declare papal infallibility until the 19th century--300 years or more after M. Luther.

jab · 07-16-2008, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

Quote:

Originally Posted by jab

It does make a difference. If you don't say what you meant to say in your writing, the likelihood is that you are a bad writer. As I have pointed out on this thread and another, the good dr's God is a bad writer; but now the dr apparently doesn't hold the position that God wrote the Bible.

no christian that has a remote amount of knowledge about christianity holds the view that God wrote the bible, further more, no learned educated atheist or agnostic holds the view that God wrote the bible. Sorry you're just incorrect.

If the Bible is not the word of God, then why do you feel the need here, and on at least one other thread (about the Ressurection) to prove it does not contradict itself?

Deus Ex · 07-16-2008, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jab

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

I love this quote by John Shelby Spong.

"When Martin Luther countered the authority of the infallible pope, he did so in the name of his new authority, the infallible Scriptures. This point of view was generally embraced by all of the Reformation churches. The Bible thus became the paper pope of Protestantism."

I thought the Catholic church did not declare papal infallibility until the 19th century--300 years or more after M. Luther.

Papal infallibility was dogmatically defined in 1870. It was believed unofficially long before that time. Or so I have read. :huh:

I believe the last sentence of the quote is very fitting to fundamentalist Christianity, though.

jab · 07-16-2008, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

How did Judas die?

Matt. 27:5
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:18
Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

It appears that Matthew gives an account that Judas attempted to hang himself but Luke in his account at Acts gives the result, so if you mix the two Judas hung himself from a limb, which broke and fell over the cliff below gashing him open and spilling his guts out.

It is interesting that the purchase of the field is often questioned. Matthew 27:6-7 says that the priests couldn't put the money in the sacred treasury and so bought the field with Judas' money while Acts 1:18-19 says The man himself purchased the field as reward of iniquity. Meaning simply that the priests used his money for the field.

a field with a cliff in the middle of it. sweet, if perhaps somewhat unusual. But bad narrative writing; a good editor would have told SOMEONE to mention the cliff for clarity's sake.

aa5874 · 07-16-2008, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

There's also the need to connect Jesus as a descendent of the House of David, specifically through Solomon.

If there was a virgin birth, then Joseph could contribute nothing to Jesus' connection to Davidic ancestry. The human/flesh connection to David's ancestry could only be through Jesus' mother, yet no geneaology connected to Mary is given by the gospel writers, even though it would have been logical for those writers to do so.

Apparently there was a very easy way to differentiate between "son" and "son-in-law" by using pentheros which meant "son-in-law" rather than huios which meant "son".

I'm no expert, either. I just try to comprehend what I can research.

You're wrong about Joseph: he could contribute a legal claim. That is in fact exactly how those who assert this theory explains why Matthew's list if different. According to them Luke shows the natural descent, while Matthew shows the legal.

Cheers!

But, there is still a problem, here. Joseph was just the step-father of Jesus, he either had a real human father or his father was God who would be the legal father of Jesus, not Joseph.

I will assume, for the sake of argument, that Jesus existed.
I will assume Joseph is the step-father of Jesus.
I will assume that some other real man is the father of Jesus.

Should not the genealogy of this other man be used to show the link to David, since he would actually be the legal father of Jesus?

Now, if I assume that God or the Holy Ghost is the father of Jesus, then one way to link Jesus to David would be to write the genealogy in reverse, that is, the author of Luke could have started by saying:

Jesus who was the son of God, who had a son called Adam who had a son called Seth.........who had a son called David.

Or the author of Luke could have just written, Jesus the son of Mary whose father was called Heli.......whose son was David.

But, this is all speculation and it cannot be determined that anything in the NT is true or likely to be with respect to Jesus.

thentian · 07-17-2008, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

You're wrong about Joseph: he could contribute a legal claim. That is in fact exactly how those who assert this theory explains why Matthew's list if different. According to them Luke shows the natural descent, while Matthew shows the legal.

Cheers!

But, there is still a problem, here. Joseph was just the step-father of Jesus, he either had a real human father or his father was God who would be the legal father of Jesus, not Joseph.

I will assume, for the sake of argument, that Jesus existed.
I will assume Joseph is the step-father of Jesus.
I will assume that some other real man is the father of Jesus.

Should not the genealogy of this other man be used to show the link to David, since he would actually be the legal father of Jesus?

Now, if I assume that God or the Holy Ghost is the father of Jesus, then one way to link Jesus to David would be to write the genealogy in reverse, that is, the author of Luke could have started by saying:

Jesus who was the son of God, who had a son called Adam who had a son called Seth.........who had a son called David.

Or the author of Luke could have just written, Jesus the son of Mary whose father was called Heli.......whose son was David.

But, this is all speculation and it cannot be determined that anything in the NT is true or likely to be with respect to Jesus.

I think you're not getting what it means to have a legal claim. Joseph adopted Jesus and gave him a legal claim to inherit him, just as if Jesus was his first-born son. Now, if Joseph was a lineal descendant of David, then he had a legal claim to the throne of David (unlike, say, Herod), and Jesus would inherit that claim. So Jesus would then be, legally, the King of the Jews. It could also be argued that, since Jesus was "of the House of David", he could be the Messiah.

Cheers!

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

07-16-2008, 05:50 PM	#191
Cege Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: 36078 Posts: 849	As a Christian, I wish that either or both genealogies had been given for Mary, since it's claimed in the NT that Jesus was born by virgin birth, which means only Mary could have been the contributer to Jesus' human derivation. Sadly, that's not the case, and I'm left to grapple with why Joseph's (differing) geneaolgies were even given at all since Joseph made no contribution to Jesus' physical or spiritual person.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.