D
danojr
Guest
what do i tell my atheist son why the NT gives joseph’s lineage if he is only his proxy father
- Status
E
Eucharisted
Guest
NAB commentary on Matthew 1:1-16
“While the genealogy shows the continuity of God’s providential plan from Abraham on, discontinuity is also present. The women Tamar (⇒ Matthew 1:3), Rahab and Ruth (⇒ Matthew 1:5), and the wife of Uriah, Bathsheba (⇒ Matthew 1:6), bore their sons through unions that were in varying degrees strange and unexpected. These “irregularities” culminate in the supreme “irregularity” of the Messiah’s birth of a virgin mother; the age of fulfillment is inaugurated by a creative act of God.”
It is also interesting to note that it is through the mother’s side that a child becomes Jewish.
“While the genealogy shows the continuity of God’s providential plan from Abraham on, discontinuity is also present. The women Tamar (⇒ Matthew 1:3), Rahab and Ruth (⇒ Matthew 1:5), and the wife of Uriah, Bathsheba (⇒ Matthew 1:6), bore their sons through unions that were in varying degrees strange and unexpected. These “irregularities” culminate in the supreme “irregularity” of the Messiah’s birth of a virgin mother; the age of fulfillment is inaugurated by a creative act of God.”
It is also interesting to note that it is through the mother’s side that a child becomes Jewish.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I am not sure what you mean by “proxy” father.
Joseph is often referred to as “foster” father.
Granted, Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus Christ. But, and this is key, in the Jewish customs of the time, Joseph “adopting” (there may be a better word) or “accepting” Jesus as his son, by marrying Mary, would have been understood to the people of this time as Joseph being completely (legally, morally, etc.) Jesus’ “father.”
J
JP_Marat
Guest
RESPONSE:
Yes. But he doesn’t enter tribal lineage because of that.
The male provided the “seed” (Gr. sperma) which was thought to contain the entire infant in minature. Te woman privided only the nutrients if she was “fertile” or not if she was “barren.”
So unless Joseph was the biological father of Jesus, Jesus was not of Davidic lineage. That’s the problem with Matthew’s virgin birth claim. It rules out Jesus as being the messiah.
J
JP_Marat
Guest
Perhaps we should take a closer look at scripture describing Jesus’ purported virgin birth.
(1) These accounts appear only in Matthew and Luke. After the first few chapters - the Nativity Narratives - a virgin birth is never referred to again. Jesus never referred to a virgin birth.
(2) An earlier gospel of Matthew doesn’t have a nativity narrative (see Ebionites’ Gospel of Matthew. Is it possible that these narrratives were added later?
(3) Neither Mark’s nor John’s gospels claim a virgin birth.
(4) Paul’s Epistle to the Romans describes a natural birth for Jesus.
1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 Which he had promised before, by his prophets, in the holy scriptures, 3 Concerning his Son, who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh,
Note: " Of the seed of David"…“According to the flesh” - a natural birth in David’s lineage
(1) These accounts appear only in Matthew and Luke. After the first few chapters - the Nativity Narratives - a virgin birth is never referred to again. Jesus never referred to a virgin birth.
(2) An earlier gospel of Matthew doesn’t have a nativity narrative (see Ebionites’ Gospel of Matthew. Is it possible that these narrratives were added later?
(3) Neither Mark’s nor John’s gospels claim a virgin birth.
(4) Paul’s Epistle to the Romans describes a natural birth for Jesus.
1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 Which he had promised before, by his prophets, in the holy scriptures, 3 Concerning his Son, who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh,
Note: " Of the seed of David"…“According to the flesh” - a natural birth in David’s lineage
F
FCEGM
Guest
There’s nothing “purported” about His virgin birth for a Catholic or an Orthodox, now, is there?
This article by James Akin addresses the two genealogies:
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9712chap.asp
J
JP_Marat
Guest
RESPONSE:
That would depend if his belief system allowed him to be intellectually honest and judge by the available evidence rather than preconceptions.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia: Ebionites
“Recent scholars have plausibly maintained that the term did not originally designate any heretical sect, but merely the orthodox Jewish Christians of Palestine who continued to observe the Mosaic Law…They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, **and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew **(Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3). Their doctrines are similarly described by Hippolytus (Philos., VIII, xxii, X, xviii) and Tertullian (De carne Chr., xiv, 18),”
Apparently their early Matthew didn’t have a virgin birth story.
J
JP_Marat
Guest
Gal 4:4 “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law” (DR)
Note: The law of nature or the Mosaic law ? A legitimate child born naturally?
Romans 1: 3 “Concerning his Son, who was made to him **of the seed of David, according to the flesh,” **(DR)
Note: Conceived via male “seed” and “according to the flesh,” ie. a natural birth?
Note: The law of nature or the Mosaic law ? A legitimate child born naturally?
Romans 1: 3 “Concerning his Son, who was made to him **of the seed of David, according to the flesh,” **(DR)
Note: Conceived via male “seed” and “according to the flesh,” ie. a natural birth?
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
“That would depend if his belief system allowed him to be intellectually honest and judge by the available evidence rather than preconceptions.”
Considering that the very fact you made that statement seems to reek of your own preconceptions, that doesn’t seem to be a very fair statement to make.
That statement also seems fairly arrogant, since you lump all Catholics together as being bound by a belief system based on preconceptions, right after stating an opinion of your own preconceptions. Here’s the thing though, what’s wrong with that if the preconception is true? The onus is on you to prove that Catholicism isn’t true, before you attack Jim Akin’s explanation just because he’s Catholic.
Then, instead of making a sweeping statement that Jim’s explanation is wrong, you might actually want to address his argument and say *why *they are wrong. Otherwise, your statement has no substance.
I’d say you have your work cut out for you.
Considering that the very fact you made that statement seems to reek of your own preconceptions, that doesn’t seem to be a very fair statement to make.
That statement also seems fairly arrogant, since you lump all Catholics together as being bound by a belief system based on preconceptions, right after stating an opinion of your own preconceptions. Here’s the thing though, what’s wrong with that if the preconception is true? The onus is on you to prove that Catholicism isn’t true, before you attack Jim Akin’s explanation just because he’s Catholic.
Then, instead of making a sweeping statement that Jim’s explanation is wrong, you might actually want to address his argument and say *why *they are wrong. Otherwise, your statement has no substance.
I’d say you have your work cut out for you.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Legal paternity was sufficient in Jewish eyes to establish a man as being from a family line. Joseph accepted Jesus in by his fatherly prerogative to name the Child. This would also explain the importance of the message of the angel to Joseph, where naming the child played a crucial role in the message.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
As for your above Scripture quote, Jesus’ fleshly nature was descended from David. Made under the law refers to Mosaic, not “natural law”. You’re imposing your own views here (that run contrary to what the Jews expected of their own messiah) and they just so happen to be fairly liberal.
Personally, in contrast to Jim Akin, I do believe Jesus’ bloodline can be convincingly argued through Mary.
Personally, in contrast to Jim Akin, I do believe Jesus’ bloodline can be convincingly argued through Mary.
- A good case can be made for Jesus’ bloodline coming through his mother, Mary, in which case he would be a blood descendant of Mary.
- A good case can be made for genealogical descent through a woman when there were no male heirs.
- The messiah was to be both David’s son (and thus a physical descendant) and yet his Lord, and so more than a physical descendant.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Doesn’t prove anything one way or another.
Whether there was an earlier Gospel of Matthew is speculative. Maybe, maybe not.
Neither Mark’s nor John’s Gospel narrate ANYTHING about Jesus’ birth. So we shouldn’t believe Mary was his mother because Mark and John don’t narrate the nativity? John never mentions Mary by name anywhere. Again, this is not objectively definitive one way or another.
Yes, the BIRTH of Jesus was natural (it’s the conception that people differ on) and yes, Jesus is of David’s lineage. The point of this passage in Romans is to assert the full humanity of Jesus and his lineage from David, it has nothing to do with a virginal conception.
J
JP_Marat
Guest
RESPONSE:
(1). Not true. The blood (or seed) line is always that of the father, never the mother. Moreover, from Luke we learn that Mary is the cousin of Elizabeth. And Elizabeth is a “daughter of Aaron.” Not David.
(2) Please cite **any case at all **in the Bible in which descent is through a woman rather than a man. It doesn’t happen. You are evidently confusing the inheritence of property through a male with genealogy through a male.
(3) Lord is a **title of respect **for someone with authority. It does not have to mean divinity.
1 Kings 25
25 Let not my lord the king, I pray, regard this naughty man Nabal: for according to his name, he is a fool, and folly is with him: but I thy handmaid did not see thy servants, my lord, whom thou sentest.
No need for more that physical descent here.
J
JP_Marat
Guest
RESPONSE:
That there was an earlier version of Matthew has been demonstrated. Keep in mind our present version can only be dated from about 325 AD. On the other hand, the Ebonite version is clearly quoted from earlier sources. See the references given in the article.
Don’t Mark’s and John’s gospel list Mary as Jesus’s mother (as well as list his brothers)? And because nothing was know about Jesus’ birth, obviously Mark and John didn’t deal with it. Quite probably neither did the original Matthew and Luke especially since no reference is made to Jesus’ birth after the nativity narratives.
Birth without a biological Father is hardly “natural.” And Jesus is of David’s (and Solomon’s) lineage ONLY if biological paternity (or seed line) is followed, ie, physically through Joseph.
Hint: Women don’t carry the “Y” chromosome. Only men do. If you want to try the "David through Mary claim, Jesus would have then to be a woman.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Are you saying the Gospel of Matthew is dated from about 325 A.D.? Sorry if I don’t understand, thanks for any clarification.
The Gospel of John never mentions “Mary” as the mother of Jesus. You are free to think that the original Matthew and Luke did not include references to Mary as Jesus’ mother, but that seems a minority opinion (do you have any scholarly support, or Bible translations that contains notes to that effect?).
I am distinguishing birth vs. conception. Birth without a father is of course natural. Conception without a human father is not. And no, Davidic lineage is not limited to biology.
Hint: I know. Hint: genealogies in the Bible are not limited to only biological interpretations. The genealogies given in Matthew and Luke do not agree on specifics, but do agree that Jesus is of Davidic lineage. That’s the point, not the (biological) details.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Okay, to flesh out my original point. PART 1:
A. All clear early early Christian sources attest to Jesus’ Davidic descent (Ex: Rom. 1:3). Hegesippus reports a Palestinian tradition in which Roman authorities interrogated Jesus’ brother’s grandsons for Davidic descent (Euseb. H.E. 3.20), Julius Africanus attests Jesus’ relatives claiming Davidic descent (Letter to Aristides), and probably more significantly, non-Christian Jewish polemicists never bothered to try to refute it. Assuming my argument that the Davidic line runs by blood through Mary, this would also suggest that Mary’s Davidic bloodline was well-known, particularly since later traditions suggested Jesus was a bastard, so the only bloodline they would go off would be Mary’s.
B. Luke 1:32, recounting Gabriel’s words to Mary, makes good sense if she was a descendant of David, since she is being informed that the son to be conceived within her as a virgin will inherit the throne of his father David.
C. The fact that the NT preserves two different genealogies lends support to the idea that one is Mary’s and one is Joseph’s. Why preserve two seemingly contradictory genealogies?
D. The Greek construction of Luke 3:23 certainly allows for the genealogy to be that of Mary, stating, in effect that Jesus was thought to be the Son of Joseph but was actually the (grand)son of Heli. This would be in harmony with some of the genealogical evidence from the Tanakh.
E. There is no strong evidence that the genealogy is NOT Mary’s so unless conclusive evidence is raised to the contrary, we can’t rule out the Davidic descent through Mary.
You might answer that tribal affiliation only goes through the father, not the mother. This is only partially true.First, in terms of inheritance, the OT teaches that if a man dies, leaving no sons but only daughters, the inheritance is passed on through the daughters and their husbands, provided that they marry within the tribe (see Num. 27:1-11; 36:1-12). The daughter’s inheritance is joined with the husband’s. While this doesn’t deal with genealogy, it does deal with the passing on of family inheritance through a daughter; certainly a related concept.
In the case of Jesus, Mary also married within the same tribal family, since Joseph was a Judahite and, more specifically, a descendant of David. Accodring to U. Holzmeister, this is how Luke’s genealogy could actually be understood as that of Mary, but in connection with Joseph. Mary was an heiress (had no brothers) whose father Eli, in line with a biblical tradition concerned with the maintainence of the family line in cases with no male heir (Ezra 2:61 = Neh. 7:63; Num 32:41 cf. 1 Chr. 2:21-22, 34-35; Num 27:3-8), on the marriage of his daughter to Joseph, adopted Joseph as his son. Matthew gives Jospeh’s ancestry by birth, Luke that by adoption.
1 Chronicles 2:34-36 states: “Sheshan had no sons - only daughters. He had an Egyptian servant named Jarha. Sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to his servant Jarha, and she bore him Attai. Attai was the father of Nathan, Nathan the father of Zabad…”
Sheshan’s genealogy continues through his daughter’s children, all of whom bear Israelite names rather than Egyptian names despite Jarha’s Egyptian background. The genealogy continues through the daughter’s children.
Both of these examples: inheritance and pedigree, are helpful here, since Mary and Joseph’s pedigrees together provide Jesus with a legitimate line to the throne, without making him a mere descendant of David.
1 Chronicles 2:13-16: “Jesse was the father of Eliab his firstborn; the second son was Abinadab, and the third Shimea, the fourth Nethanel, the fifth Raddai, the sixth Ozem and the seventh David. Their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail. Zeruiah’s three sons were Abishai, Joab and Asahel.”
It is important to note that Zeruiah, and not the father, is cited in the genealogical record.
And by the way, Mary’s genealogical line runs back to David through Nathan, not Solomon. So using the “she’s Aaron’s daughter” line isn’t going to work.
The messiah was shown as coming with the clouds from heaven in Daniel 7:13-14, and as riding on a donkey in Zechariah 9:9. Both are written as prophecies that must be fulfilled. The virgin birth is the only way for both to be true at once. And if you’re a Davidic King, first off your son isn’t going to be your “Lord,” and second off, he’s not going to come on the clouds of heaven. Let’s not read your liberal bias into it because you want to be an Ebionite so badly. Psalm 110 Begins with the well-known words “YHWH said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right Hand…’” Rabbinic sources such as Midrash Tehillim 2:9; 18:29 follow the messianic interpretation, and this belief was so common it was taken for granted by New Testament times.
There are also Rabbinic traditions speaking of the Messiah’s preexistence, and his heavenly dialogues with God. The midrash to Isaiah 52:13 states that the Messiah, who will come forth out of David, will be higher than Abraham, lifted up from Moses, and loftier than the ministering angels (see Yalqut Shim’oni 2:571). Basically, the messiah has to be David’s son, and yet preexistent and greater than David. Your “intellectually safe” use of Lord doesn’t apply too well here.
A. All clear early early Christian sources attest to Jesus’ Davidic descent (Ex: Rom. 1:3). Hegesippus reports a Palestinian tradition in which Roman authorities interrogated Jesus’ brother’s grandsons for Davidic descent (Euseb. H.E. 3.20), Julius Africanus attests Jesus’ relatives claiming Davidic descent (Letter to Aristides), and probably more significantly, non-Christian Jewish polemicists never bothered to try to refute it. Assuming my argument that the Davidic line runs by blood through Mary, this would also suggest that Mary’s Davidic bloodline was well-known, particularly since later traditions suggested Jesus was a bastard, so the only bloodline they would go off would be Mary’s.
B. Luke 1:32, recounting Gabriel’s words to Mary, makes good sense if she was a descendant of David, since she is being informed that the son to be conceived within her as a virgin will inherit the throne of his father David.
C. The fact that the NT preserves two different genealogies lends support to the idea that one is Mary’s and one is Joseph’s. Why preserve two seemingly contradictory genealogies?
D. The Greek construction of Luke 3:23 certainly allows for the genealogy to be that of Mary, stating, in effect that Jesus was thought to be the Son of Joseph but was actually the (grand)son of Heli. This would be in harmony with some of the genealogical evidence from the Tanakh.
E. There is no strong evidence that the genealogy is NOT Mary’s so unless conclusive evidence is raised to the contrary, we can’t rule out the Davidic descent through Mary.
You might answer that tribal affiliation only goes through the father, not the mother. This is only partially true.First, in terms of inheritance, the OT teaches that if a man dies, leaving no sons but only daughters, the inheritance is passed on through the daughters and their husbands, provided that they marry within the tribe (see Num. 27:1-11; 36:1-12). The daughter’s inheritance is joined with the husband’s. While this doesn’t deal with genealogy, it does deal with the passing on of family inheritance through a daughter; certainly a related concept.
In the case of Jesus, Mary also married within the same tribal family, since Joseph was a Judahite and, more specifically, a descendant of David. Accodring to U. Holzmeister, this is how Luke’s genealogy could actually be understood as that of Mary, but in connection with Joseph. Mary was an heiress (had no brothers) whose father Eli, in line with a biblical tradition concerned with the maintainence of the family line in cases with no male heir (Ezra 2:61 = Neh. 7:63; Num 32:41 cf. 1 Chr. 2:21-22, 34-35; Num 27:3-8), on the marriage of his daughter to Joseph, adopted Joseph as his son. Matthew gives Jospeh’s ancestry by birth, Luke that by adoption.
1 Chronicles 2:34-36 states: “Sheshan had no sons - only daughters. He had an Egyptian servant named Jarha. Sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to his servant Jarha, and she bore him Attai. Attai was the father of Nathan, Nathan the father of Zabad…”
Sheshan’s genealogy continues through his daughter’s children, all of whom bear Israelite names rather than Egyptian names despite Jarha’s Egyptian background. The genealogy continues through the daughter’s children.
Both of these examples: inheritance and pedigree, are helpful here, since Mary and Joseph’s pedigrees together provide Jesus with a legitimate line to the throne, without making him a mere descendant of David.
1 Chronicles 2:13-16: “Jesse was the father of Eliab his firstborn; the second son was Abinadab, and the third Shimea, the fourth Nethanel, the fifth Raddai, the sixth Ozem and the seventh David. Their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail. Zeruiah’s three sons were Abishai, Joab and Asahel.”
It is important to note that Zeruiah, and not the father, is cited in the genealogical record.
And by the way, Mary’s genealogical line runs back to David through Nathan, not Solomon. So using the “she’s Aaron’s daughter” line isn’t going to work.
The messiah was shown as coming with the clouds from heaven in Daniel 7:13-14, and as riding on a donkey in Zechariah 9:9. Both are written as prophecies that must be fulfilled. The virgin birth is the only way for both to be true at once. And if you’re a Davidic King, first off your son isn’t going to be your “Lord,” and second off, he’s not going to come on the clouds of heaven. Let’s not read your liberal bias into it because you want to be an Ebionite so badly. Psalm 110 Begins with the well-known words “YHWH said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right Hand…’” Rabbinic sources such as Midrash Tehillim 2:9; 18:29 follow the messianic interpretation, and this belief was so common it was taken for granted by New Testament times.
There are also Rabbinic traditions speaking of the Messiah’s preexistence, and his heavenly dialogues with God. The midrash to Isaiah 52:13 states that the Messiah, who will come forth out of David, will be higher than Abraham, lifted up from Moses, and loftier than the ministering angels (see Yalqut Shim’oni 2:571). Basically, the messiah has to be David’s son, and yet preexistent and greater than David. Your “intellectually safe” use of Lord doesn’t apply too well here.
J
JP_Marat
Guest
Diggerdomer posted:
Originally Posted by JP Marat
RESPONSE:
That there was an earlier version of Matthew has been demonstrated. Keep in mind our present version can only be dated from about 325 AD. On the other hand, the Ebonite version is clearly quoted from earlier sources. See the references given in the article.
The earliest extant copy of Matthew we have dates from approximately 325 A.D. To find what still earlier versions said, we have to rely on quotations from Matthew found in writings of the Church Fathers. For example, Eusebius had an extensive library available to him. He quotes from an earlier version of Matthew 28 with differs from our present version.
Originally Posted by JP Marat
RESPONSE:
That there was an earlier version of Matthew has been demonstrated. Keep in mind our present version can only be dated from about 325 AD. On the other hand, the Ebonite version is clearly quoted from earlier sources. See the references given in the article.
RESPONSE:
The earliest extant copy of Matthew we have dates from approximately 325 A.D. To find what still earlier versions said, we have to rely on quotations from Matthew found in writings of the Church Fathers. For example, Eusebius had an extensive library available to him. He quotes from an earlier version of Matthew 28 with differs from our present version.
J
juliamajor
Guest
the point of the genealogies is theological-not historical.why are tamar, ruth, bathsheba included-surely not for lineage purposes?What is the meaning of the genelogies in OT as and NT? Not just history is being passed through these lists.The character and nature of people and tribes is projected through these lists
.Don’t get bogged down by ‘facts’ when there is theological truth to be uncovered.
C.Corday
.Don’t get bogged down by ‘facts’ when there is theological truth to be uncovered.
C.Corday
J
JP_Marat
Guest
J
JP_Marat
Guest
RESPONSE:the point of the genealogies is theological-not historical.why are tamar, ruth, bathsheba included-surely not for lineage purposes?What is the meaning of the genelogies in OT as and NT? Not just history is being passed through these lists.The character and nature of people and tribes is projected through these lists
.Don’t get bogged down by ‘facts’ when there is theological truth to be uncovered.
C.Corday
Yes. We just have to believe and have faith and ignore the facts, don’t we?
- Status