05 Jul 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhat bearing does the lineage have? The Messiah was prophesied to have come from the tribe of Judah or the root of Jesse. The lineage in quesiton clearly shows this to be the case. As for your assertion otherwise, all I can say is prove it.
And what bearing does Joseph's lineage have anyway? Jesus didn't come from that strain in any manner.
05 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyDo you deny that Jesus didn't come from Joseph's lineage?
What bearing does the lineage have? The Messiah was prophesied to have come from the tribe of Judah or the root of Jesse. The lineage in quesiton clearly shows this to be the case. As for your assertion otherwise, all I can say is prove it.
That is, do assert that Joseph was in fact the father of Jesus?
05 Jul 07
Originally posted by Nemesio"I don't believe that either Sts Matthew or Luke knew the names of
Originally posted by whodey
[b]For example, the story of Abraham being told to sacrifice his son to me has significant spiritual meaning. Do you not see a correlation with God sacrificing his own Son?
I understand the Christians have made a correlation out of this story to emphasize the importance
of the actions they attribute to Jesus. Aft ...[text shortened]... ess anything further back, but invented
them for midrashic reflection.
Nemesio[/b]
any of the great-grandparents, much less anything further back, but
invented them for midrashic reflection. "
Any other race maybe, but that one, no, I believe linage was of the
up most importance to them, check the OT if you really find that hard
to believe.
Kelly
05 Jul 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI see what you are saying. However, despite Jesus not being the literal blood lineage of his father, Joseph was still his father. During first century times, if a Jewish man adopted a son, that son recieves the father's lineage. Therefore, according to Jewish tradition, Jesus would be given the genealogy of the adopted father.
Do you deny that Jesus didn't come from Joseph's lineage?
That is, do assert that Joseph was in fact the father of Jesus?
05 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyYou are thinking like a 21st-century American reader with a bent towards literalism.
So you think the authors of Matthew and Luke did not know the names of any of the great'grandparents but simply made them up for the heck of it? In fact, they had no reason for including such knowingly inaccurate information other than getting their kicks? Interesting.
You need to start thinking like a 1st-century Jewish author with a bent towards harmonious interweaving
of Jewish history with present history.
I know this because you wrote 'knowingly inaccurate information' as if Midrash was about lying
rather than spiritual enlightenment.
Nemesio
05 Jul 07
Originally posted by KellyJayYou misunderstood. Of course I believe that lineage was critical to Jewish folk. That's why these
Any other race maybe, but that one, no, I believe linage was of the
up most importance to them, check the OT if you really find that hard
to believe.
authors took the pains to create lineages for Jesus which took Him to either Abraham or Adam.
What I don't believe is that any of them knew any of the actual lineages. At best, only one could
possibly know it because the other one doesn't match at all.
As for the OT lineages, I also think of them as Midrashic fantasies to give the wandering nomadic
Jews a sense of continuity.
Nemesio
05 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyThis is BS. I can find no Jewish source that confirms this. In fact, Jewish Law is clear in stating
During first century times, if a Jewish man adopted a son, that son recieves the father's lineage. Therefore, according to Jewish tradition, Jesus would be given the genealogy of the adopted father.
that adoption does not confer tribal lineage.
www.torahatlanta.com/articles/ Problems%20with%20Jesus'%20Lineage.htm
http://www.yrambam.org/Programs/HighSchool/connection.htm
http://www.messiahtruth.com/jesusgen.html
Find a citation from the 1st century or earlier that says that the father's lineage is passed on
to an adopted child.
Nemesio
05 Jul 07
4 edits
Originally posted by NemesioI found this article:
This is BS. I can find no Jewish source that confirms this. In fact, Jewish Law is clear in stating
that adoption does not confer tribal lineage.
www.torahatlanta.com/articles/ Problems%20with%20Jesus'%20Lineage.htm
http://www.yrambam.org/Programs/HighSchool/connection.htm
http://www.messiahtruth.com/jesusgen.html
Find a citation from the 1st cent ...[text shortened]... y or earlier that says that the father's lineage is passed on
to an adopted child.
Nemesio
http://www.jstandard.com/articles/1873/1/Adoption-and-Jewish-law
In the article it states that Jewish sources tend to be contradictory on the matter. Imagine that? 😛
The article states that in Exodus Rabbah 46:5 that a question arises about what Hebrew name to use for a woman raised by a foster father. It is explained that justifying the decision to use the foster father's name the text says, "He who brings up a child is to be called the fathers, not he who gives birth."
Conversly, Judaism also stresses bloodlines, and in traditional communities it is important to know if a child born of a Jewish-mother is a mamzer (the product of incestuous relations or adultrery); whether the child requires a pidyon haben ceremony (when the first-born to the biological mother is male); and whether the child is a Kohen, Levi, or Yisrael. He points out that this information is particularly important if the child wishes to move to Israel later in life or marry into the Orthodox community.
However, these factors DO NOT come into play if the child is born to a gentile mother. For that reason, some rabbis suggest that it is preferable to adopt a non-Jewish child, thus avoiding any difficulties that may arise from questions of the child's legitimacy. Children born to non-Jews require only a formal conversion to Judaism, which includes immersion in a mikvah for both male and female children and a brit milah, or symbolic brit, for a boy.
So here we see both acceptance and rejection depending upon the child meeting certain criterea. So the question must be asked, what should one do with a child born via an immaculate conception? Unfortunatly, this is unpresadented to say the least.
One must ask why such laws are put into place? Was it ordained by God to insure that bloodlines were to remain pure? If so, then an immaculate conception implies that God was responsible for the conception of Christ and it was he alone. Thus, no transgression of the law in terms of bloodlines can say to have existed. Therefore, such laws do not apply in this case. However, if such laws were purely man-made, then what business is it of man to question God's tactics? The question then becomes who knew about the conception and were they subsequatly accepted within the community with or without such knowledge?
Please do not ask me to find a first century Jewish law about immaculate conceptions. :'(
Such questioning reminds me of when Christ was accused of breaking the Sabbath when he healed on the Sabbath. Technically he broke the law but not the spirit of the law for which it was intended. I think you will find that this is but one of the many "rules" in life that Christ broke.
Edit: It seems that such questions in terms of bloodlineage is important particularly if one is to continue to have offspring. Christ had no offspring, therefore, who is effected? Perhaps this is one of the reasons why he had not offspring? Perhaps questions concerning his legitimacy within his own community provented him from being able to have children within the society that he lived?
05 Jul 07
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioAnd perhaps you are thinking like a first century Pharisee who was so wrapped up in Jewish tradition and Jewish law that they lost sight of why the law and such traditions were even given? Chirst had nothing but disdain for such people.
You are thinking like a 21st-century American reader with a bent towards literalism.
You need to start thinking like a 1st-century Jewish author with a bent towards harmonious interweaving
of Jewish history with present history.
I know this because you wrote 'knowingly inaccurate information' as if Midrash was about lying
rather than spiritual enlightenment.
Nemesio
05 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyNo, Jesus was not a real person. In fact that is what you are trying to confirm with your 'witnesses' so you cannot take it as a given.
Good point, however, Jesus was a real person.
Now, are you also implying that Mary was not a real person?
I think the examples you provided are "proof" that something happened. I think you will agree that more credance is given to 5 witness or even more to 12 witnesses etc. than just one. Whether these occurances are "real" in terms of how they are perceived is another matter entirely, however. Either that or the stories are a complete fabrication which some are.
I notice you mention 12 witnesses. Are you talking about the disciples? Did they all write bits of the Bible?
Your initial claim was that since the Bible is written by a number of authors it gives "added legitimacy" to it. You seemed to think that this "added legitimacy" was quite important and should cause pause for thought to anyone doubting the Bibles accuracy. I on the otherhand think that although it might point towards some of the events being at least partially accurate, it doesn't in any way make it more likely that any one story that is not mentioned by more than one writer is accurate.
Then again, would you give your life for a fabrication or for something you were not certain of?
I don't see the relevance of that question.
05 Jul 07
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadJesus was not a real person? Well I suppose you may not be one as well. Perhaps I am not real either? Then again, if you consider that the Bible has proven itself as an accurate historical reference, so much so that the scientific disipline of Biblical archaeology is based upon it, then perhaps you should give it a litttle more credibility. Also, the Bible is not the only historical reference to the life of Christ. If I recall the Jewish scribe Josephus also wrote of him, albiet breifly. Then again maybe Josephus was never real either. After all, I have never met the man. Come to think of it, perhaps the Bible is not real either. Perhaps it is nothing more than a figment of my imagination like you must be. NO, NO, NO!! Somebody stop me!! 🙄
No, Jesus was not a real person. In fact that is what you are trying to confirm with your 'witnesses' so you cannot take it as a given.
Now, are you also implying that Mary was not a real person?
[b]I think the examples you provided are "proof" that something happened. I think you will agree that more credance is given to 5 witness or even more to 12 something you were not certain of?
I don't see the relevance of that question.[/b]