Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Paul - Mary genealogy
#1
From what I saw, it looked like as the footnote for Matthew 1:16, you wrote "gbra" instead on "gwra" maybe I just misread.

Anyway, to business. I absolutely loved your solution to the contradictory genealogies. Just one prob. If Jeconiah was cursed by God that none of His descendants would sit on David's throne, why is Jesus biologically descended through him?
Reply
#2
drmlanc Wrote:From what I saw, it looked like as the footnote for Matthew 1:16, you wrote "gbra" instead on "gwra" maybe I just misread.

Anyway, to business. I absolutely loved your solution to the contradictory genealogies. Just one prob. If Jeconiah was cursed by God that none of His descendants would sit on David's throne, why is Jesus biologically descended through him?

It's spelled gbra but in eastern pronunciation the beth is soft - a "aw" sound.

Akhan Andrew had a great explanation for that curse thing - search the archives and definitely put that in the upcoming article.... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#3
[ON THE GENEALOGY OF JOSEPH] rak 2/85

from folia 120a-120b (in the same hand) after the superscription in the "Bryennios Codex" (H) in which the Didache is preserved (MS dated by Leontos the copyist to 1054 CE)

Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom the Christ was born, is descended from a Levitic family, as the divine evangelists indicated. But Matthew traces Joseph's descent from David through Solomon, while Luke (says) through Nathan. Solomon and Nathan were both sons of David. Now the evangelists were silent about the ancestry of the holy virginsince it was not customary for the Hebrews nor for the divine scripture to give genealogies for women and there was a law prohibiting one family from contracting marriage (with a person) from another. Insofar as Joseph was descended from a Davidic family, he contracted to marry the holy virgin who was from his own ancestry. So they were content to indicate the ancestry of Joseph. Now there was a law that when a childless husband died, his own brother was to go to impregnate the wife and raise up an offspring for the one who had died. Thus the resultant child was, on the one hand, by nature (an offspring) of the second one, who had generated it, but by law, (offspring) of the one who died. Now, from the seed of Nathan, son of David, Levi generated Melchi. But from the seed of Solomon, Matthan generated Jacob. But when Matthan died, Melchi the son of Levi, from the family of Nathan, impregnated the mother of Jacob and generated from her Eli. This resulted in half-brothers with a common mother, Jacob and Eli. But Jacob was from the family of Solomon, while Eli was from the family of Nathan. Then when Eli, from the family of Nathan, died childless, and Jacob his (half-)brother took his (Eli's) wife he generated Joseph and raised up an offspring for his (dead) brother. So Joseph is by nature a son of the Jacob who descended from Solomon, but by law (he is son) of Eli (who descended) from Nathan.

This can be accessed from here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/sgosp1.html">http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/sgosp1.html</a><!-- m -->

I DO NOT agree with your article Paul!
Reply
#4
Most likely Matthew gives Joseph's and Luke, Mary's geneaology. Evidences:

a.This theory seems supported by several early Christian writers -
Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, and Justin Martyr
b.It is indirectly confirmed by Jewish tradition. Lightfoot cites from the Talmudic writers concerning the pains of hell, the statement that Mary the daughter of Heli was seen in the infernal regions, suffering horrid tortures. This statement illustrates, not only the bitter animosity of the Jews towards the Christian religion, but also the fact that, according to received Jewish tradition, Mary was the daughter of Heli; hence, that is her genealogy in Luke

c.This theory shows us in what way Christ was the "Son of David." If Mary was the daughter of Heli, then Jesus was strictly a descendant of David, not only legally, through is reputed father, but actually, by direct personal descent, through his mother. Jews even today inherit their Jewishness through their mother. If your mother isn't Jewish, neither are you. So biologically, the Son of God had to be born of a Jewish woman to be considered a Jew.

d.This theory affords a very simple explanation of the whole matter. Mary, since she had no brothers, was an heiress; therefore her husband, according to Jewish law, was reckoned among her father's family, as his son. So Joseph was that actual son of Jacob, and the legal son of Heli.

From the same place:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/sgosp1.html">http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/sgosp1.html</a><!-- m -->

I feel that your taking a word out of context in this case Paul. If then the word says what it says, then it is wrong, and I know you guys don't want to hear that, but let truth be the guide.
Reply
#5
Here is teh answer from AGR. At first I didn't liek it as it looks like God contradicts Himself. But I guess the same God who can curse can also lift curses and bless etc. And yeah, Zerubabbel was the ruler of Judea, so there you go. I also used this Zerubabbel stuff ages ago to dispel the myth that the Davidic throne is now in England. The 'throne' that went to England was not the rightful Davidic throne. Zerubabbel was the rightful leader <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

-----

What About "Jeconiah???s Curse"?



On a related topic another problem frequently raised about Matthew in general has to do with the so-called "curse of Jeconiah" (a.k.a. "Jehoichin" and "Coniah"). Here is how Jeremiah puts it:



"As surely as I live," declares the LORD, "even if you, Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off. I will hand you over to those who seek your life, those you fear--to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and to the Babylonians. I will hurl you and the mother who gave you birth into another country, where neither of you was born, and there you both will die. You will never come back to the land you long to return to."Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot, an object no one wants? Why will he and his children be hurled out, cast into a land they do not know? O land, land, land, hear the word of the LORD! This is what the LORD says: "Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah."

Jeremiah 22:24-30 (NIV)
So, it would seem that if our revised understanding of Matthew???s genealogy includes the idea that this is Mary???s lineage, then we have a major problem: The only BIOLOGICAL parent the Messiah has is under a lineage cursed from ruling in Israel!

Or???is it? Let???s look at this curse one feature at a time:

As surely as I live," declares the LORD, "even if you, Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off.

But Jeconiah???s descendant, Zerubabel, is written of this way:

"`On that day,' declares the LORD Almighty, `I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel,' declares the LORD, `and I will make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you,' declares the LORD Almighty."

Haggai 2:22-24

And when Jeremiah says that Jeconiah will never prosper, the opposite happens:



"In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Evil-Merodach became king of Babylon, he released Jehoiachin from prison on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month. He spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat of honor higher than those of the other kings who were with him in Babylon. So Jehoiachin put aside his prison clothes and for the rest of his life ate regularly at the king's table. Day by day the king gave Jehoiachin a regular allowance as long as he lived."
2 Kings 25:27-30
Jeremiah says, "Record this man as if childless", and yet he has children:

The descendants of Jehoiachin the captive: Shealtiel his son???

1 Chronicles 3:17

Finally, for a man whose descendants are never supposed to rule in Israel, his grandson Zerubabel seems to do pretty well for himself:

"In the second year of King Darius, on the first day of the sixth month, the word of the LORD came through the prophet Haggai to Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest."

Haggai 1:1

Therefore, all the biblical evidence strongly suggests that after Jeconiah had 37 years to think about his sins, he repents and the curse is lifted.

So, with all this evidence in mind, we at last come to the revised list for the third set, which now reads:

Shealtiel
Zerubabel
Abiud
Eliakhim
Azor
Zadok
Akim
Eliud
Eleazar
Matthan
Jacob
Joseph, the FATHER of
Mary, of whom was born
Y???shua, who was called the Messiah
Reply
#6
this is wrong, the title was not held by Mary, she held the bloodline only. The title came down through Josesh the Husband to be, the male. That's why Matthew lists them the way he does. It was not hebrew custom to list Womens genealogy's.

So look at what your saying here. Your saying that Matthew is listing Mary's genealogy. That is wrong.

If that word is wrong in the Peshitta, then face up to the truth, not develop wild theories to support a wrong. You will place yourself and this site amongst the kooks out there instantly, by everyone. You are doing a disservice to the word of GOD.

How many have done this in the past?
Reply
#7
""this is wrong, the title was not held by Mary, she held the bloodline only. ""

Title and bloddline came through the Matthew genealogy, whoever it is of.


""That's why Matthew lists them the way he does. It was not hebrew custom to list Womens genealogy's.
""

It had to be here, as Jesus had no other biological parent. His physical blood came from Mary, so it was important to have hers. And if Luke gives Mary's, why doesn't he even mention her (while Matthew does) in that context?

""So look at what your saying here. Your saying that Matthew is listing Mary's genealogy. That is wrong.
""

I see no proof of your "that is wrong" statement. It is entirely possible. And given the wildly different genealogies, it looks like that is how it goes...

""If that word is wrong in the Peshitta, then face up to the truth""

The word can go both ways, so there is no wrong word in Peshitta.


""You are doing a disservice to the word of GOD.
""

You wanna stop the arrogant and judgemental attitude? You quickly come off as the "if you don't believe what I believe, then you are not a Christian!" type <!-- sSleepy --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sleepy.gif" alt="Sleepy" title="Sleepy" /><!-- sSleepy -->
Reply
#8
Paul and Andrew, Larry etc: Was Jesus the rightful King physically, the rightful king through David?

I think it is so, but have some questions on it. That would mean that Joseph, father of Mary had no sons right, otherwise Jesus couldn't be physically the rightful king. Also, why was this kingly line poor, while the governer etc was rich? I guess the second one is a dumb question, as once Nebuchadnezzar made his own Judean king, and the rightful king at the time is in Jesus ancestry <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#9
Look at it. It will list Mary's genealogy if you say that the Joseph listed is Mary's father.

They were married. The title transfers to the son. No matter if Joseph wasn't involved in the conception, the title will still transfer to the Lord.

Again, I will say this plainly, it was not Hebrew custom to list womens genealogies, and if you say that the Joseph listed is Mary's father, you are going against the custom's that Matthew's audience knew.

It's the same approach i just posted. It is judgemental, in the fact I'm seeing what your doing wrong, and I would not be any sort of Christian if I didn't point it out to you.
Reply
#10
""Again, I will say this plainly, it was not Hebrew custom to list womens genealogies""

Then are BOTH genealogies of Joseph, or is one of Mary, a woman <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
Reply
#11
Your wrong on this.

This is particular. Your ending with the last decendant as Mary, that makes it Mary's lineage, and that goes against the audience that Matthew was writing to,...let alone Hebrew custom.

that is wrong.

Its a list of the kingly title. It would not be passed through Mary.
Reply
#12
Answer the question. It is obvious how you avoid it. On one hand you say that it goes against Jewish custom to have a woman's genealogy, but on the other hand you refuse to answer:

"Are both genealogies of Joseph, or is one of Mary?" <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->
Reply
#13
The Genealogy listed in Matthew is the title decent that was transferred to Joseph, that's why each name is listed as:

Abraham fathered Isaac,

etc.

It lists each firstborn son, not daughter.

We are talking about the current genealogy, not another. Keep to the topic and refrain from distractions here.
Reply
#14
Keep to the topic? Are you kidding me? You see your error here and cannot admit? Sheesh! If Luke gives Mary's genealogy as is believed by many, then a woman's genealogy is given. Then it is possible for Hebrews to have a woman's genealogy. So it could well be Matthew.
Reply
#15
No.

Matthews audience was to the Jewish converts. They knew better.

Mary's genealogy listed in Luke shows the bloodline, not the title.

Mary's father is Heli, not joseph.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)