sschlichter

actually, there is probably some truth in Toto's comment. I was not referring to any specific law when I said legal. I, admittedly was projecting the modern notion of a legal guardian (as I think Toto was pointing out) onto Joseph and Jesus.

Obfuscation might be giving me more credit than is deserved.

The point was that Joseph was Jesus' father in all respects besides genetically. Whatever legal parental rights existed then - I am certain there is no provision for a son born from above and Jesus was commonly (if that is a better term than legal) thought to be Joseph' son.

~Steve

sschlichter

These are Jewish adherents that feel differently.

What, then, are some of the credentials of the Messiah? Only a few can be listed below; there are many others. All of these passages were recognized by the early rabbis as referring to the Messiah:

Messiah was to be born at Bethlehem: Micah 5:1
Messiah would be from the tribe of Judah: Genesis 49:10
Messiah would present himself by riding on an ass: Zechariah 9:9
Messiah would be tortured to death: Psalm 22
Messiah would arrive before the destruction of the Second Temple: Daniel 9:24-27
Messiah's life would match a particular description, including suffering, silence at his arrest and trial, death and burial in a rich man's tomb, and resurrection: Isaiah 52:13-53:12
In detail as to lineage, birthplace, time, and lifestyle, Jesus matched the Messianic expectations of the Hebrew Scriptures. The record of this fulfillment is to be found in the pages of the New Testament. But several other factors combine to further substantiate the Messiahship of Jesus.

aa5874

So, you are admitting that the inheritance of Jesus is based on fraud or deliberate mis-information. In the NT, the person called Joseph, in gMatthew, was about to make his wife or wife-to-be a public example for being pregnant, by fornication or adultery. And if Jesus was a real human, then gMatthew's conception of Jesus is not true.

Jesus' inheritance, if he was a real human, was then a scandalous case of fraud, and deception.

James Brown

I have no doubts whatsoever that an evangelical Christian group called Jews for Jesus would hold that Jesus is the Messiah.

The Jewish Concept of Messiah and the Jewish Response to Christian Claims


This page even addresses the "Mary was the natural parent and Joseph was the legal parent" argument:

sschlichter

Well, you casted Jews as authoritative based on the fact that they were Jews.

Here is what I feel is the best treatment I have found of the lineage of Mary and Joseph.

http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/mt1-1.html

A summary.

There is such a view. Like the third proposed solution, this
fourth view understands the genealogy in Luke really to be Mary's,
but for different reasons. Here Heli is understood to be the
progenitor of Mary, not of Joseph. Joseph is not properly part
of the genealogy, and is mentioned only parenthetically,
Luke 3:23 should then read "Jesus ... was the son (so it was
thought, of Joseph) of Heli." The support for this view is
impressive.

a. Placing the phrase "so it was thought, of Joseph" in
parentheses, and thus in effect removing it from the
genealogy, is grammatically justified. In the Greek text
Joseph's name occurs with the Greek definite article
prefixed; every other name in the series has the article.
By this device Joseph's name is shown to be not properly
a part of the genealogy. Jesus was only thought to be his
son. This would make Jesus the son (that is, grandson or
descendant) of Heli, Mary's progenitor, and is consistent
with Luke's account of Jesus' conception, which makes clear
that Joseph was not his physical father (Luke 1:26-39).

b. This view allows the most natural meaning of begat to stand.
In other words, begat refers to actual physical descent
rather than to jumps to collateral lines.

c. Matthew's interest in Jesus' relation to the Old Testament and
the Messianic kingdom makes it appropriate that he give Joseph's
really descent from David through Solomon - a descent that is
also Jesus' legal descent - and thus gives him legal claim to
the Davidic throne.

d. Because Luke emphasizes the humanity of Jesus, his solidarity
with the human race, and the universality of salvation, it is
fitting that Luke show his humanity by recording his human
descent through his human parent, Mary. His pedigree is then
traced back to Adam.

e. The objection that Mary's name is not in Luke's version needs
only the reply that women were rarely included in Jewish
genealogies; though giving her descent, Luke conforms to
custom by not mentioning her by name. The objection that Jews
never gave the genealogy of women is met by the answer that
this is a unique case; Luke is talking about a virgin birth.
How else could the physical descent of one who had no human
father be traced? Furthermore, Luke has already shown a
creative departure from customary genealogical lists by
starting with Jesus and ascending up the list of ancestors
rather than starting at some point in the past and descending
to Jesus.

f. This view allows easy resolution of the difficulties surrounding
Jeconiah (Matt. 1:11), Joseph's ancestor and David's descendant
through Solomon. In 2 Sam. 7:12-17 the perpetuity of the
Davidic Kingdom though Solomon (vv. 12-13) is unconditionally
promised. Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) later was the royal
representative of that line of descent for which eternal
perpetuity had been promised. Yet for his gross sin (2 Chron.
24:8-9), Jeconiah was to be recorded as if childless, and
no descendant of his would prosper on the Davidic throne
(Jer. 22:30). This poses a dilemma. It is Jeconiah through
whom the Solomonic descent and legal right to the throne
properly should be traced. Solomon's throne had already
been unconditionally promised eternal perpetuity. Yet Jeconiah
will have no physical descendants who will prosper on that
throne. How may both the divine promise and the curse be
fulfilled?

First, notice that Jeremiah's account neither indicates
Jeconiah would have no seed, nor does is say Jeconiah's line
has had its legal claim to the throne removed by his sin. The
legal claim to the throne remains with Jeconiah's line, and
Matthew records that descent down to Joseph. In 1:16, Matthew
preserves the virgin birth of Jesus and at the same time makes
clear that Jesus does not come under the curse upon Jeconiah.
He breaks the pattern and carefully avoids saying that Joseph
(a descendant of Jeconiah) begat Instead he refers to "Joseph,
the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus." In the
English translation the antecedent of "whom" is ambiguous.
But in the Greek text, "whom" is feminine singular in form
and can refer only to Mary who was not a descendant of
Jeconiah. As to human parentage, Jesus was born of Mary alone,
through Joseph his legal father. As Jesus' legal father,
Joseph's legal claim passed to Jesus. But because Jesus was
not actually Jeconiah's seed, although of actual Davidic
descent through Mary, descendant of Nathan, Jesus escaped
the curse on Jeconiah's seed pronounced in Jeremiah (22:30.
Thus the problem is resolved.

Doug Shaver

Compared with people who don't speak English, the English people have an *acquired* (not innate) superior understanding of Shakespeare. They acquired that superior understanding when they learned their native language.

aa5874

You are dreaming.

You don't just make stuff up and then say you have resolved the genealogies.

Why didn't the authors ask Joseph, his so-called wife or sons and daughters for his genealogy?

One explanation is that all of them died or all of them could not have died, they NEVER lived.

angelo

I assume you guys know of the tradition [ gossip ?] floating around at the time that Jesu's father was a Roman soldier named Panthera.

And that's why the virgin birth was cooked up. He may well have been illegitimate. [ always with the proviso that if he existed at all ]

sschlichter

We "acquired" modern English. It does not necessarily conteyn Shakespeare's English. Nor does it necessarily contain an understanding of Shakespeare culture.

sschlichter

yeah, I learned that from Monty Python.