Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Family Man · 07-19-2002, 04:18 PM

Out of curiosity: are there any examples of a genealogy written through the mother in any ancient Jewish document? If not, why should the Luke/Mary thesis be taken seriously?

In other words, if Jewish lineages were always through the male line, isn't it obvious the genealogies are a contradiction?

Gringo · 07-19-2002, 09:31 PM

I read this in an apologetic <a href="http://jamaat.net/comp/lineage.html" target="_blank">article</a> for Islam:

Quote:

Still, pretending that the lineage that Luke gives is Mary's makes no difference. As we have already pointed out, it is part of the Cursed Branch of Jeconiah (remember, it runs through Jeconiah's son and grandson, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel), and thus makes Jesus an invalid candidate for being the messiah.

I tried to check to see if this argument was iron clad, but with all the varied spellings and names to remember I couldn't keep it in line. Are both Joseph and Mary descended from the same Zerubbabel and is this Zarubbabel part of the Cursed Branch? I couldn't find any Christian apologetics to this specific point, but if there is a Christian or skeptic who believe either of these lineages could be construed as legitimate, please tell me how.

Marduk · 07-20-2002, 06:04 AM

"Mary descended from the same Zerubbabel and is this Zarubbabel part of the Cursed Branch? "

I could be wrong but I think the cursed branch was the Moabites, and I also believe that yes, they were Moabites.

I thought the Maternal line was more important than the Paternal in things Hebrew? To be a 'real' Jew your Mother must be Jewish not the father. She's the one who gives birth.

Gringo · 07-20-2002, 08:12 AM

From what I've read, the Cursed Branch starts with Jeconiah. I'm not sure if he was of matrilineal descent to Moabites, but he was a descendant of David through his patrilineal line. From my understanding, Jeconiah was a paternal ancestor to Zerubbabel, though, it is confusing how this Zerubbabel might be descended from both Nathan and Solomon through his paternal side.

07-20-2002, 08:18 PM

Admiral/Clutch:

Could either or both of you please learn Hebrew before you posit contradictions in Genesis. Since if you knew the language, then you would know that the Hebrew does not express the verb in English tenses. In Hebrew, the verb is expressed as either completed action, action not yet complete, or the imperative.

In both instances of Genesis, the Hebrew, 'asah, made, is in the form of completed action. So when the story reports that God made the animals and brought them to the man, we do not know whether the animals were made before that first man or vice versa. However, lucky for us, what you posit as a different story answers the question for us. The animals were made before that man.

Both of you will either have to forgive or indulge me, or both, but for a board that claims to want to do away with the superstitious and embrace science, the rather commonplace lack of anything resembling logical thought on this board is simply astounding.

For example, on this thread, someone reported that if there is an inconsistency in the resurrection stories, then one or the other, or both, must be fabrications. Can all the rest of you see the error in that proposition? Let me put the matter this way. There was an accident last night at the intersection of Isenberg and King. Mr. A says that Driver X had the green, but Mr. B says that Driver Y did. Tell me, we no doubt have contradiction as to who had the green, but are we to now deny that there was accident last night at King and Isenberg? As a longtime lawyer, it would be precise agreement on every detail, and not any purported contradiction, that would cause me to believe that someone was cooking-up [as it were] a story.

And by the way, Christianity simply does not stand or fall on the inerrancy of the Bible. Christianity stands or falls, as that other Paul made rather plain, on the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. And on that point, all the reports agree.

A while back, someone posted re the contradictions in the stories of that other Paul's conversion. Pity that there is simply no contradiction. The first story is the author relating the event[s] as historical fact. The second is the author relating what that other Paul reportedly told some Roman official. It is that other Paul's memory that is faulty, but there is no contradiction. And for those with eyes to see and ears to hear, then you know that that other Paul's faulty recollection was included to make the point plain that his conversion had nothing to with who heard or did not hear the voices or, for that matter, anything miraculous. The moral of the story is that that other Paul was confronted with something that he could no longer deny: a Jew who underwent execution by torture at the hands of the Romans was conscious...

FunkyRes · 07-20-2002, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by marduck:
"Mary descended from the same Zerubbabel and is this Zarubbabel part of the Cursed Branch? "

I could be wrong but I think the cursed branch was the Moabites, and I also believe that yes, they were Moabites.

I thought the Maternal line was more important than the Paternal in things Hebrew? To be a 'real' Jew your Mother must be Jewish not the father. She's the one who gives birth.

Yes but inheritance went through the Father- including succesion to the throne.

That is why many Jews say Jesus could not be the anointed one- because Joseph was not his Father.

What they neglect, of course, is that Joseph was the supposed Father of Jesus (adopted) and as such, all the legal benefits of Fatherhood were there for Jesus.

Gringo · 07-20-2002, 08:58 PM

FunkRes, what do you make of the accusation that Joseph's line nor Mary's line had no legal right to the throne, since both are supposedly descended from Zerubbabel, and he in turn was descended from Jeconiah, whose whole line of descent was cursed never to sit upon the throne of David.

Vorkosigan · 07-20-2002, 10:51 PM

.... but for a board that claims to want to do away with the superstitious and embrace science, the rather commonplace lack of anything resembling logical thought on this board is simply astounding.

Yes, it's true, we do get a lot of Christians here.....

FunkyRes · 07-21-2002, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gringo:
FunkRes, what do you make of the accusation that Joseph's line nor Mary's line had no legal right to the throne, since both are supposedly descended from Zerubbabel, and he in turn was descended from Jeconiah, whose whole line of descent was cursed never to sit upon the throne of David.

I would like to see a reference to the biblical passage of the curse.

I'll look, though, for myself and see if I can find it.

FunkyRes · 07-21-2002, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Jeremiah 22:29-30�O land, land, land, hear the word of the Lord! Thus said the Lord: Record this man as without succession, one who shall never be found acceptable; for no man of his offspring shall be accepted to sit on the throne of David and to rule again in Judah. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

It is a widely held belief that the curse on Coniah (sometimes called Jeconiah or Jehoiakim) is far reaching and effects Jesus' tenure on David's throne. At first glance it does appear that way. But if we look closer, it can easily be seen that the curse was relatively brief, and did not extend beyond the period of the divided kingdom.

The curse on Coniah's offspring was limited to the time of his family's rule in Judah. So it was in effect only during the days of the divided kingdom with Judah in the south and Samaria in the north. That condition came to an end when Nebuchadnezzar crushed the whole country and led first Samaria, and then later Judah, off to Babylonian slavery. However, when Messiah reigns, the country of Israel will be unified. His rule won't be limited to Judah within a divided kingdom, but will dominate all of Eretz Israel. So the curse does not apply to him.

from <a href="http://www.cliffordaweber.com/jeconiah.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cliffordaweber.com/jeconiah.htm</a>

[ July 21, 2002: Message edited by: FunkyRes ]

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

07-19-2002, 04:18 PM	#31
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	Out of curiosity: are there any examples of a genealogy written through the mother in any ancient Jewish document? If not, why should the Luke/Mary thesis be taken seriously? In other words, if Jewish lineages were always through the male line, isn't it obvious the genealogies are a contradiction?

07-20-2002, 06:04 AM	#33
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	"Mary descended from the same Zerubbabel and is this Zarubbabel part of the Cursed Branch? " I could be wrong but I think the cursed branch was the Moabites, and I also believe that yes, they were Moabites. I thought the Maternal line was more important than the Paternal in things Hebrew? To be a 'real' Jew your Mother must be Jewish not the father. She's the one who gives birth.

07-20-2002, 08:12 AM	#34
Gringo Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: WV Posts: 207	From what I've read, the Cursed Branch starts with Jeconiah. I'm not sure if he was of matrilineal descent to Moabites, but he was a descendant of David through his patrilineal line. From my understanding, Jeconiah was a paternal ancestor to Zerubbabel, though, it is confusing how this Zerubbabel might be descended from both Nathan and Solomon through his paternal side.

07-20-2002, 08:18 PM	#35
Paul5204 Guest Posts: n/a	Admiral/Clutch: Could either or both of you please learn Hebrew before you posit contradictions in Genesis. Since if you knew the language, then you would know that the Hebrew does not express the verb in English tenses. In Hebrew, the verb is expressed as either completed action, action not yet complete, or the imperative. In both instances of Genesis, the Hebrew, 'asah, made, is in the form of completed action. So when the story reports that God made the animals and brought them to the man, we do not know whether the animals were made before that first man or vice versa. However, lucky for us, what you posit as a different story answers the question for us. The animals were made before that man. Both of you will either have to forgive or indulge me, or both, but for a board that claims to want to do away with the superstitious and embrace science, the rather commonplace lack of anything resembling logical thought on this board is simply astounding. For example, on this thread, someone reported that if there is an inconsistency in the resurrection stories, then one or the other, or both, must be fabrications. Can all the rest of you see the error in that proposition? Let me put the matter this way. There was an accident last night at the intersection of Isenberg and King. Mr. A says that Driver X had the green, but Mr. B says that Driver Y did. Tell me, we no doubt have contradiction as to who had the green, but are we to now deny that there was accident last night at King and Isenberg? As a longtime lawyer, it would be precise agreement on every detail, and not any purported contradiction, that would cause me to believe that someone was cooking-up [as it were] a story. And by the way, Christianity simply does not stand or fall on the inerrancy of the Bible. Christianity stands or falls, as that other Paul made rather plain, on the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. And on that point, all the reports agree. A while back, someone posted re the contradictions in the stories of that other Paul's conversion. Pity that there is simply no contradiction. The first story is the author relating the event[s] as historical fact. The second is the author relating what that other Paul reportedly told some Roman official. It is that other Paul's memory that is faulty, but there is no contradiction. And for those with eyes to see and ears to hear, then you know that that other Paul's faulty recollection was included to make the point plain that his conversion had nothing to with who heard or did not hear the voices or, for that matter, anything miraculous. The moral of the story is that that other Paul was confronted with something that he could no longer deny: a Jew who underwent execution by torture at the hands of the Romans was conscious...

07-20-2002, 08:58 PM	#37
Gringo Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: WV Posts: 207	FunkRes, what do you make of the accusation that Joseph's line nor Mary's line had no legal right to the throne, since both are supposedly descended from Zerubbabel, and he in turn was descended from Jeconiah, whose whole line of descent was cursed never to sit upon the throne of David.

07-20-2002, 10:51 PM	#38
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	.... but for a board that claims to want to do away with the superstitious and embrace science, the rather commonplace lack of anything resembling logical thought on this board is simply astounding. Yes, it's true, we do get a lot of Christians here.....

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.