judge

whew! I think i'd rather demeaning. thanks muchly.

Chris Weimer

No problem. I'm still agnostic about it, and quite frankly, as Walt brought up, it could have been a mistake by a later editor unaware of the numerological meaning in the geneology.

Dharma

Mess-i-ah means "annointed one of Yah" and has a direct correlation with the God Yah.

Wallener

Messiah is an English word, not a Hebrew or Aramiac one. Unless "mess" means "annoint" in english, the above derivation appears to be without foundation. The Hebrew is "Moshiak", and has nothing resembling "Yah" in it.

sMacK

It's all Greek to me anyway.

show_no_mercy

Also, the term "anointed one" is used because Jewish kings are annointed with olive oil as part of their coronation ceremony

Dharma

here is a derivation:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/arc...hp/t-6415.html
There is no such word as "moshi'ia" in Hebrew. The root word is "Yasha" the "mem" is a preposition, with the conjunction "waw" or "and." When the preposition is prefixed to the word the initial "yod" of "Yasha" loses its consonantal effect so instead of being min-w-yasha it becomes "moshi'im," with the masculine plural ending "im"


---------------

and Yasha means "God saves"

sharon45

If there wasn't, then most Jews would also be christians. As jesus ties to pass himself off as a son of god whether for real(or as even god himself), or the sense from Judaism, he fails on both counts.

John A. Broussard

But by far the overwhelming majority of current Christians are Gentiles, so why should they care about the lineage to David?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Chris,

To quote Johnny Depp, "Now that's interesting."

If Joseph was Mary's father and the geneology attached to the gospel of Matthew is trying to prove kingship for Jesus, then it would work just as well if Jesus was married to Mary. Whoever changed Jesus to the son of Mary, rather than the husband, also eliminated one name from the geneology to make Jesus the seventh seventh, instead of Mary. This I believe answers Walter's criticism of your discovery.

I cannot help thinking that it was the misogynist Tertullian who changed the Matthew geneology and wrote the one in Luke. I suggest that he had a real problem with his wife who was beautiful, prophetic and probably much more popular than him in his Montanist clique. It caused him to put in a lot of his misogynist ideology when he put together and rewrote his New Testament.

If this is correct, it suggests that Brown's Da Vinci Code is probably more true than Eusebius' History.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay