Freethought & Rationalism Archive

11-11-2002, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aphelion:


The first is Mary�s relation to Elizabeth, my knowledge of Biblical law is limited however I think the point made in this respect may be assuming too much.

For what it is worth, Elizabeth and Mary were of the same Tree (of life), and so was Magdalene.

In "Coriolanus" Elizabeth was Volumnia who's name echoes the volume of infinity. Virgilia was Virgin Mary and Magdalene was Valeria who stood for valor.

Coriolanus and Macbeth are often compared with each other in that both are renewal stories. Significant in MacBeth was that Lady MacBeth had no name but Lady Macbeth which was done to expose the difference between salvation by faith in Rome and salvation by carnal desire in England. One leads to a comedy, the other to a tragedy.

diana · 11-12-2002, 05:33 AM

Hi, Aphelion!

Welcome to the board! Nice opening post.

I have discussed this issue a couple of times before, true, but I doubt I know more about it than you.

...the law in Numbers 27 (or thereabouts and so on through the law books) which states that if there are no male offspring leaving only women who are otherwise not entitled to heir ship, that in these circumstances the title and goods can be passed onto the female.

Good point. I'd forgotten about that. Relevant verses from Numbers 27:

Quote:

Num 27:4 Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us [therefore] a possession among the brethren of our father.

Num 27:5 And Moses brought their cause before the LORD.

Num 27:6 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Num 27:7 The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them.

Num 27:8 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.

So the daughters complain that the name of their father dies if he has no sons, then ask for an inheritance among his brothers, and they are granted the inheritance.

You make a good point. Since there are no surnames, it may be safe to assume that preserving "the name of the father" simply means that the children of these women take their bloodline instead of their husbands' bloodlines as their proper lineage, yes?

So Mary who the NT says is devoid of male siblings can pass the royal heritage onto Jesus.

I don't find where the NT says Mary is devoid of male siblings. Do you perhaps mean that the NT doesn't mention any siblings of Mary? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Are you perhaps assuming too much here?

d

CX · 11-12-2002, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aphelion:
CX can you refer me to some articles on the point you are making, I think I understand what you are saying but some more detail would be helpful.

Hmmm...just finished with finals so I don't recall exactly the point to which you are referring. I'd be happy to try and point you in the right direction if you tell me for what you are looking.

11-12-2002, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by diana:

I don't find where the NT says Mary is devoid of male siblings. Do you perhaps mean that the NT doesn't mention any siblings of Mary? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Are you perhaps assuming too much here?

d

Hello daina, we left out the perpetual virginity of Mary to avoid fornication and so maybe you are assuming to much.

Asha'man · 11-12-2002, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos:
Hello daina, we left out the perpetual virginity of Mary to avoid fornication and so maybe you are assuming to much.

Siblings, Amos, not children.

Mary having a brother is completely independent from her status as a virgin. The only way for Mary to pass her bloodline to Jesus would be if she had no brothers.

Asha'man · 11-12-2002, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aphelion:
So is there a clear contradiction or not ?

Yes, there is a clear contradiction.

The only real question is how do you want to alter the plain meaning of the text to fix the contradiction?

If you want to believe that one of the genealogies is for Mary, then you have to edit the text so that it reads Mary rather than Joseph. The fact that the text must be edited clearly shows that it has a contradiction as written.

Llyricist · 11-12-2002, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Yes, there is a clear contradiction.

The only real question is how do you want to alter the plain meaning of the text to fix the contradiction?

If you want to believe that one of the genealogies is for Mary, then you have to edit the text so that it reads Mary rather than Joseph. The fact that the text must be edited clearly shows that it has a contradiction as written.

Not to Mention the very basic contradiction of supplying a bloodline for Jesus through Joseph AT ALL.

Janaya · 11-12-2002, 10:27 AM

Llyricist,

Not to Mention the very basic contradiction of supplying a bloodline for Jesus through Joseph AT ALL.

That is not a contradiction. It is simply pointless.

Peace,
Janaya

11-12-2002, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Asha'man:


Siblings, Amos, not children.

Right, sorry. Well the Immaculate Conception takes care of the sibling part. Mary never had a bloodline because she was fully "woman" and woman was taken from man. Woman was never created to have a bloodline of her own but to be the womb of man as it is told in story of the birth of Jesus.

Hawkingfan · 11-12-2002, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos:


But there is no contradiction at all, Baidarka. How can you even suggest such a thing if Jesus was the reborn Joseph and Mary was the womb of Joseph to give birth to his first begotten identity who always was the son of God because it is in the image of God that son of man is created.

The lineage of Jesus Christ in Matthew is given to show how Jesus Christ was from the line of David and this same Jesus Christ finds his origen through Joseph to Adam to God in Luke. Matthew is the Jewish perspective and Luke is the omniscient Christian perspective.

The significance of this is that Jesus was from Judaism and returned to God in Luke to show that Christianity is a offshoot from Judaism but finds its origen through Adam to God. This makes it a new religion without any obligation or loyalty towards Judaism.

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]

Can you please give the scripture reference for this awkward interpretation of a family tree? Otherwise, it is your word against ours. Jesus is NOT the reborn Joseph. Mary is NOT Joseph's womb. If the lineage in Luke is "omniscient" then it should not be inconsistent with ANYTHING. Otherwise, you could not call it omniscient.

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

11-12-2002, 10:27 AM	#68
Janaya Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 226	Llyricist, Not to Mention the very basic contradiction of supplying a bloodline for Jesus through Joseph AT ALL. That is not a contradiction. It is simply pointless. Peace, Janaya

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.