Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Slojodan · 08-07-2005, 01:46 AM

Hey Guys,

I stumbled across this interesting article which says that the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1 actually proves Jesus to be a blood descendant of David. How it supposed this was that there were two Joseph's, Mary's father, and Mary's husband. In the original Aramaic, the word "husband" was supposed to be "Father." Keep in mind it says at the end of the genealogy in Matthew 1 that there are supposed to be 14 generations in each leg of the genealogy, ending with 14 from Jehoachin to Jesus. There are only 13 generations if you put the Joseph in the genealogy as Mary's Husband. If you put Mary under Joseph, it becomes 14. This would actually make Jesus the REAL son of David instead of the adopted son of David. The link is here: http://www1.itech.net/~ydl/Genealogy...sus_Christ.htm
What do you think?'

Amaleq13 · 08-07-2005, 01:52 AM

Here is an earlier thread on the subject:

42 or 41 generations?

judge · 08-07-2005, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slojodan

Hey Guys,

I stumbled across this interesting article which says that the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1 actually proves Jesus to be a blood descendant of David. How it supposed this was that there were two Joseph's, Mary's father, and Mary's husband. In the original Aramaic, the word "husband" was supposed to be "Father."

Yes, the word gowra can mean husband or it can mean father. It seems to always refer to a male head of the household.

It seems pretty clear that the author of Matthew wanted to show that there were two different men called Jospeh.
One was her husband and one was her father. This small chage resolves all the contradictions.

Not that I don' t think there are contradictions in the bible, this just isn't one of them.

gregor · 08-07-2005, 04:31 PM

Judge, I don't know you can assert that something is clear on this. It appears that both spin and andrew destroyed your assertion. I welcome others to read the referenced thread.

judge · 08-07-2005, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

Judge, I don't know you can assert that something is clear on this. It appears that both spin and andrew destroyed your assertion. I welcome others to read the referenced thread.

Here is my assertion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Yes, the word gowra can mean husband or it can mean father. It seems to always refer to a male head of the household.

After that one can believe what one wants.

Diogenes the Cynic · 08-07-2005, 05:45 PM

1. There was no original Aramaic. Matthew was composed in Greek. (Judge will dispute this, but he has a fringe opinion on this and he knows it). The Greek says andra, "husband." If Matthew had wanted to say "father," he would have said pater, a word he does use several times in his gospel.

2. Maternal bloodlines were not kept and had no legal significance. It was irrelevant if Mary was descended from David. The Messiah must be a direct patrilinal descendant of David. His mother's bloodline means nothing.

judge · 08-07-2005, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

1. There was no original Aramaic. Matthew was composed in Greek. (Judge will dispute this, but he has a fringe opinion on this and he knows it).

It is not really me who disputes it , what about Eusebius?

Quote:

Eusebius reported in Book V,
chapter 10 concerning an Egyptian father named
Pantaenus who lived in the 2nd century:

"Of these Pantaenus was one:it is stated that he went as
far as India, where he appears to have found that
Matthew's Gospel had arrived before him and was in the
hands of some there who had come to know Christ.
Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them
and had left behind Matthew's account in the actual
Aramaic characters, and it was preserved till the time of
Pantaenus's mission."

Quoted from the translation by G. A. Williamson, The
History of the Church, Dorset Press, New York, 1965,
pages 213-214.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The Greek says andra, "husband." If Matthew had wanted to say "father," he would have said pater, a word he does use several times in his gospel.

.

Unless of course it is a mistranslation!

These things do happen you know.

judge · 08-07-2005, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

2. Maternal bloodlines were not kept and had no legal significance. It was irrelevant if Mary was descended from David. The Messiah must be a direct patrilinal descendant of David. His mother's bloodline means nothing.

Actually, as has been pointed out previously, this statement is not correct.

The prophesies were that the messaih would be a descendent of David, not that the it must be patrilinal lineage.

Diogenes the Cynic · 08-07-2005, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

It is not really me who disputes it , what about Eusebius?

Surely you know better than to cite Eusebius as a credible source.

Quote:

The prophesies were that the messaih would be a descendent of David, not that the it must be patrilinal lineage.

When you're talking about the heir to the throne of David, Jewish laws of succession- especially royal laws of succession- require a patrilinear descendancy.

judge · 08-07-2005, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Surely you know better than to cite Eusebius as a credible source.

Sure but is still some evidence, which contradicts your dogmatic assertion.

Down with dogma

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

When you're talking about the heir to the throne of David, Jewish laws of succession- especially royal laws of succession- require a patrilinear descendancy.

Can you demonstrate that these "laws of succession", precede the prophecies?

If these "laws of succesion" come after the original prophecy then they aren't really worth much.

08-07-2005, 01:46 AM	#1
Slojodan Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: San Diego Posts: 11	Matthew's Genealogy as Mary's??? Hey Guys, I stumbled across this interesting article which says that the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1 actually proves Jesus to be a blood descendant of David. How it supposed this was that there were two Joseph's, Mary's father, and Mary's husband. In the original Aramaic, the word "husband" was supposed to be "Father." Keep in mind it says at the end of the genealogy in Matthew 1 that there are supposed to be 14 generations in each leg of the genealogy, ending with 14 from Jehoachin to Jesus. There are only 13 generations if you put the Joseph in the genealogy as Mary's Husband. If you put Mary under Joseph, it becomes 14. This would actually make Jesus the REAL son of David instead of the adopted son of David. The link is here: http://www1.itech.net/~ydl/Genealogy...sus_Christ.htm What do you think?'

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

08-07-2005, 01:52 AM	#2
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	Here is an earlier thread on the subject: 42 or 41 generations?

08-07-2005, 04:31 PM	#4
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	Judge, I don't know you can assert that something is clear on this. It appears that both spin and andrew destroyed your assertion. I welcome others to read the referenced thread.

08-07-2005, 05:45 PM	#6
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	1. There was no original Aramaic. Matthew was composed in Greek. (Judge will dispute this, but he has a fringe opinion on this and he knows it). The Greek says andra, "husband." If Matthew had wanted to say "father," he would have said pater, a word he does use several times in his gospel. 2. Maternal bloodlines were not kept and had no legal significance. It was irrelevant if Mary was descended from David. The Messiah must be a direct patrilinal descendant of David. His mother's bloodline means nothing.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.