Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
genealogy, Mary the rightful king?
I'm sure there were plenty of nice things thrown in there by the friendly jews over this.
heres one:

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.

would Luke list Mary in his genealogy?

If we are to understand that this could be Mary's genealogy, would he actually list her? I say no. He could list Joseph as his son in law, so as not to list a woman in the genealogy.

EDIT: I don't know, genealogies are for the male, so I'm out on a limb with these questions here, i feel.
Shlama Dave,

But the Shealtiel~Zerubbabel can also be explained in terms of a levirate marriage.

That the Hebrew "ben" and Aramaic "bar" are used in places to mean several types of relationships is well known (c.f. Mattai 1:1 !!, Yeshia bar Dawid, bar Abraham!), but what I was specifically asking for is what proof do we have that he would be considered the Son of his father-in-law in regards to things like inheritance....

My uncle to this day calls me "bari" (my son), and this is the Aramaic equivalent to the Hebrew "ben".....but that doesn't mean that if he didn't have sons that I would inherit anything!

What citations can you give about the legal status of a son-in-law in regards to inhertance, assuming of course that Maryam had no male siblings, uncles, or cousins.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Shlama Akhay, while the Talmud does help us solve the problem, the very section that implies that Jeconiah repented and the curse was lifted, also has a grave error.

It seems to assume that no blood sacrifice was needed for his atonement, rendering Christianity useless...

And Craig, this is very easy for an atheist or somesuch to use against us.

God - So much as I live none of your descendandts shall be on the throne of David

Reality - The kingship went back to his line.

MASSIVE contradiction, when we have no evidence whatsoever that the curse was lifted. If we say we have to assume, then we damage our credibility so much. Then others can say, that as we don't use Scripture alone, then they can too, and come up with trinity, anti-Sabbath, Mary worship, baby immersion etc

Why must things be so difficult? <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->
Shlama Akhi,

It's not a contradiction.

Read Jeremiah 22:29-30 carefully:

Quote: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)

The wording "to rule again in Judah" implies that the curse was relatively brief, and did not extend beyond the period of the divided kingdom, which of course came to an end after the Assyrians destroyed the Northern Kingdom and the Babylonians destroyed the Southern Kingdom.

Meshikha's jurisdiction as King on David's Throne is not limited to the region of Judah only, and the divided kingdom no longer exists. So the curse does not apply to him.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
I cannot accept that explanation for the following:

1) None shall be accepted to sit on David's thrne

2) North and South were still seperate. The South became the "Jews" of the time, while the North went around the world, colonising the crap out of it...
Akhi Dave,

The Messiah must come from the line of David through Solomon, and not Nathan. He must be genetically descended from Solomon, since that is the rightful kingship. (2Samuel 7:12-15, 1Chronicles 17:11-14, 1Chronicles 22:9-10)

Since the lineage in Mattai lists both Solomon and Mary, isn't it best to conclude that this is Mary's lineage? Is that just a coincidence?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Sounds good Akhi, but remember that both have Shetaliel and Zerubabbel, so both genealogies are descended of Solomon, right?
It does make sense Paul, i give you that, but it does raise other questions in the process.

We just concluded that the word did say the curse was lifted, abeit indirect, but it did say that. If we look at this as Mary's lineage, now what just happened to Joseph? He is legitimate heir to the throne, and to pass that on to Jesus, do we toss him out and not list him? Many more questions also.

In the process of this, while we rip each others hair out, it is a major learning experience.

I'm still looking for a precise reference for the quote earlier, if i can't find one,, then i will have to retract the quote and source.
again he calls him that but no reference of where he figures it:

The two lilies given respectively by Matthew and Luke differ as far back as David, because the paternal line descends from Solomon, and the maternal from Solomon's brother, Nathan. The two unite by intermarriage in Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, and then separate again in two sons of Zerubbabel, Abiud and Rhesa. They again [345] unite by marriage when Joseph, the last of the paternal line, is married to Mary, the daughter of Heli, the last of the maternal line. Joseph is here called the son of Heli, because he was his son-in-law.

J. W. McGarvey
Short Essays in Biblical Criticism (1910)
I thinks i might have found it:

"Mary's father (Heli?) had two daughters, Mary and the unnamed wife of Zebedee (John 19:25; Matt 27:56). If there were no sons, Joseph would become son of Heli on his marriage, to preserve the family name and inheritance (cf. Num 27:1-11; 36:1-12, esp. v. 8, which accounts for Mary marrying a man of the family of David.)"

as you were talking about Paul, levirate marriage.

again, there are no certainties here, and the word is silent about any particulars on this. It would explain a lot, and The LORD was particular about the provision for it (numbers 36:6).

Which leads back around to first base here.

Theory: if the lineage in Matthew was of Mary, what problems does it pose???

Also, if we were careful and read the word correctly, and it attests to the curse being lifted, then Joseph is a legit decendant, and to be included. Does it make sense to not include him?

and more questions,....

I'll have to retract the heiress statement since there is no particular statement i can find for it.
Looking at Matthews genealogy being that of Mary's:

According to the Torah, the mother (the matrilineal) determines if someone is Jewish (Deuteronomy 7:3-4), but tribal affiliation and family genealogy can only be traced through the person's father (the patrilineal in accordance with Exodus 28:4, 29:9-30, 30:30, and 40:15 [Priesthood Lineage]; Numbers 36 [Tribal Lineage]; Genesis 49:10, I Kings 11:4, and I Chronicles 17:11-19 [Kingship Lineage].).

These are several examples of the father carrying the title.

Here is something else:

For instance, in Numbers, chapter 1, verse 18, we're told that the Jewish people declare their pedigrees according to their fathers' houses. When Queen Athaliah wanted to eliminate the Royal Line of David, she only killed the males knowing full well that a female descendant of David couldn't pass on the right to the throne (II Kings 11; II Chronicles 22).

I feel I have read this correctly, and offer it to others to dwelve into. For the genealogy to be Mary's in Matthew, it would be a problem.

So far, the word indirectly mentions that the curse was lifted, as attested by Craig, and the curse can be shown to be of certain duration only, as shown by Paul on here. Plus, the curse could even be throughout the ages and be annuled by the virgin birth, as I have pointed out.

I think I would rather figure out the missing King than even attempt to say this was Mary's genealogy, as I don't think it can hold weight in this sense and would be probably claimed as heritical. My 2 cents on it.

I won't make a big production out of this cause it is taking up too much of my time. I have to get back to what The Almighty has me doing at the moment.
I don't think it's a problem Akhi.

It has to be Mary's because Jesus did not have a human father, and only his human mother could give him Solomon's genes, his bloodline.

A Messiah with a claim of linkage to Solomon through adoption is no Messiah at all, but then he would be a fake.

Meshikha can not be genetically from Nathan, he must be from Solomon - which makes the only possible solution that which is right under our nose. And for me, that's saying something.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Ok Paul, I'm not gonna persue this anymore, it's taking up too much of my time on things I'm assigned to do already.

It's been very enlightening, to say the least.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)