posted
Or it may be that the Holy Spirit used Joseph's body when effecting the conception, the process being so overwhelming that he had no memory of it afterwards.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are two genealogies, one in Mathew 1 the other in Luke 3. They are distinctly Different. One is descended from David's son Nathan, (the Luke genealogy) and the other is descended from David's son Solomon (in Matthew). Also Mathew starts from Adam and works forward while Luke works backwards.
I know one is thought to be Mary's and the other Joseph's but I forget which is which. The Matthew one does include women in the geneology itself (Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba) while the Luke one doesn't.
Here's an interesting discussion about it from the Catholic tradition perspective. It basically jives with what I was taught from the fundamentalist Evangelical Christian perspective and the evangelicals tend to hate agreeing with the Catholics about most things. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm
quote: Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says 'son of Heli'] should be understood to mean 'son-in-law of Heli.' thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word 'son' is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either 'son' or 'son-in-law' in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David--Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon's line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah's sin" [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender's Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].
quote: "It was Jechoniah whose sins caused God to cut his seed off from ever sitting on David's throne (Jeremiah 22:24-30). ...Jechoniah's royal line of descendants is listed here [in the genealogy of Matthew 1] to show the legal right of Joseph, the foster father of Jesus, to David's throne (Matthew 1:16). Neither Joseph nor any others of Jechoniah's seed could ever have the spiritual right to the throne. That right must be carried through Mary's ancestry" (Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender's Study Bible, note for Matt. 1:11.).
posted
Interesting discussion... As a young lad in the Church (catholic), we never really discussed lineage much. Suffice it to say, I never knew that there was a Biblical passage that clearly puts Jesus in the line of fathers connecting to Joseph. The whole "Well, Mary is descended from David" bit is all well and good, but as Farmgirl posted, the Bible clearly seems to be calling Joseph as the biological parent.
Why do people stick to the literal truth of this when even the very document used to supposedly support the Immaculate Conception contradicts itself by naming Joe as the dad. I don't think the Bible was worrying too much about "Legal" and "Biological" parents. Why does this one event have to be "literal?"
posted
I don't know that it has to be literal, but there are enough literalists who will take a strict interpretation, which then forces the clarification should be made available if you feel the need to be precise.
Remember, two people can read the same passage and come up with two entirely different interpretations. And that's just with poetry.
Doing the same thing with a legal contract is a little more complicated because of the specifics involved, although as I'm sure Dag would chime it - that's never stopped a lawyer from trying.
quote: And isn't Jesus the son of G-d, not Joseph?
Yes, which is why Mary was in the line of David as well. However, it was important for Joseph to be a descendent of David since in those times legal inheritance came through the father. This was true even if the child was not biological kin (ie: if a kid was adopted, they legally became a part of the new father's line). While Joseph was of course not a Roman citizen, so inheritance was not important to Rome...it was biblically important.
PS...I have never seen someone censor the word God like that.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has nothing to do with blasphemy. Many Jews don't write God's names except when absolutely necessary, lest they be accidentally erased. (I am among those who don't consider the English word "God" to be one of His names.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
fil, the Immaculate Conception is not about Jesus' conception - it's about Mary's conception. And Luke is very clear about Jesus being conceived without any action by Joseph.
quote: Many Jews don't write God's names except when absolutely necessary, lest they be accidentally erased
And Dag, what do the other 3 Gospels say about it? And if Joe wasn't involved, why isn't this considered the granddaddy of all adultery cases? Also, if Joe wasn't involved, why does another Gospel trace Jesus' lineage through Joseph so clearly?
quote:It has nothing to do with blasphemy. Many Jews don't write God's names except when absolutely necessary, lest they be accidentally erased. (I am among those who don't consider the English word "God" to be one of His names.)
I agree, not for the religious reason of the Jews, but because I have a difficult time believing that using a capital letter in that immediately singles it out to be one god of one religion. There is a reason that the god has a name or names, and every discussion I ever read on the reasoning behind the names has made sense. In simplest terms, think of it like this: when you sign a contract (the weaker, human form of covenant), do you sign with your name or "Human" on the line?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
fil, I'm unaware of any Gospel that doesn't make it absolutely clear that Joseph did not have "relations" with Mary prior to Jesus' birth. The reason for the lineage to Joseph was explained above.
She wasn't married yet, so it wouldn't even be adultery.
posted
That makes for an interesting point. I have never considered "him" as having a proper name beyond "God" and capitalize it as such when I use the word in that context.
When I refer to other mythological figures as I would people and not proper names, I use the lowercase "god" and may even reference "the Christian god" to specify.
quote: That makes for an interesting point. I have never considered "him" as having a proper name beyond "God" and capitalize it as such when I use the word in that context.
This may sound dumb, but I'll say it anyway. I've never had any trouble calling God by that name, because in my mind, there's no one else that could fit the description. I'm not calling him tree or house. As far as I'm concerned, the name God can only refer to one being, and that's him.
Example: (Correct me if I'm wrong.) The name Ba'al in the OT wasn't blasphemous in and of itself, since it just meant "lord". What was blasphemous was the use of graven images and the worship of those images in place of the actual "Lord". But I wouldn't think that refering to God as Lord or Father or Teacher, etc. would be wrong, since he IS all of those things.
edit: after reading this post, I realize that the quote doesn't have a whole lot to do with it. It just got me thinking.
quote:Just the hypothetical Dag - but did the Christian god depicted ask her permission?
Could you make a case for rape in that instance? She wasn't given the option to say "no" which, as I understand isn't the same as an implicit "yes."
-Trevor
Nope. From Luke 1:
quote:29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." 34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" 35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[3] the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God." 38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her. emphasis added.
posted
I'm as evil as you. I'm picturing myself as a prosecutor saying, "You're in a moment of passion, telling her how much you love her, and at the moment she actually said, 'May it be to me as you have said'? Isn't that kind of a mood-breaker?"
posted
Paula felt her hair raising as the static electricity began to build. She bolted out of the thread, searching for cover. Behind her, the screams from her electrocuted friends rang out into the night.
quote: PS...I have never seen someone censor the word God like that.
It's like Rivka said, let's say I wanted to delete that post, your not supposed to delete G-d's name so you don't spell it out fully. Also, some Jews say "Hashem" (in Hebrew it means "the name") because the sixth Commandment says not to use His name in vain. By the way, I use it because that's the way I was raised to from traditions, I'm not much of a practicing Jew, I just follow customs and traditions.
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't I read somewhere that some Jewish council ruled that typing and deleting the name (or backspacing it) wasn't as much an issue - it was more the fear of someone else PRINTING OUT the name and then trashing that paper?
I know there is no single presiding 'Jewish Council', but could've swore someone posted something concerning that...
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its funny how a thread about a "Christian Question" has evolved into on about a "Jewish Question."
(PS, God won't zap me for typing his name, or for the Rape jokes. However, for using the words Christian and Evolved (too close to Evolution) in the same sentence, I am doomed.)
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: There is a reason that the god has a name or names, and every discussion I ever read on the reasoning behind the names has made sense.
Well, you have to keep in mind that a name is what one individual uses to identify another, and God predates all other individuals. So it would make sense if he had no name of his own until someone made one up.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But even in the Christian bible, he gives his people many ones to call him besides common nouns and pronouns.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
As I explained above, the one in Matthew was of a "Priestly Lineage" that proved Jesus' authority on earth came from legitimate blood lines. It is true that it mentions it as Joseph's and not Mary's line. However, since Mary's name was mentioned at the bottom WITH Joseph than the implication was that it would be HER bloodline that Jesus would trace, if the legal culture Mary lived in allowed for tracing the female genealogy. In fact, by mentioning other mothers, such as David's wife, it makes that female relationship implication even more apparent.
The one in Luke is less easy to understand the contextual use. It might be that, having established the reality of Jesus, it was necessary to trace his roots for complete legitimacy of his existance. In the ancient world, having a genealogy would be much like taking your fingerprints for a security check. The more you pronounce a special place in society, the more it was required you had a worthy and reliable pedigree. However, as I had said earlier, Luke did acknowledge that others supposed that Jesus was the son of Joseph -- but denied that direct relationship.
This is not to say what I have said is accepted by everyone (what ever is). But, this is the explanation that seems to make more sense to me than any other theory.
Of related interest, John states a direct relationship of Jesus to God. Mark, on the other hand, doesn't mention genealogy at all in an official way.
*laugh* Ok, to me his last name is kind of a give away.
PSI, I would make a distinction between blasphemy (which is disrespectful and/or inappropriate uses of God's names, or assigning actions or characteristics to Him that are) and idolatry. *shrug*
Taal, it's not a council, but yes, there is such an opinion. That is, phosphors don't count as "writing," but turning those phosphors into a printed page does.
quote: Many titles and 'nicknames' were given, but only I believe only one Proper Name.
Really? There are at least two really common ones (each with multiple variants) and probably 5 somewhat common ones. Admittedly, that's in Hebrew. Surely they don't all get translated the same?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Really? There are at least two really common ones (each with multiple variants) and probably 5 somewhat common ones. Admittedly, that's in Hebrew. Surely they don't all get translated the same?
Not all of them, I believe. One of the many discrepencies between the original Hebrew translation and the current Christian version. Most of them are in there, though.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would be pretty much anything past the King James Version. Some of the newest ones may have all of them, since I haven't pored through all of the versions. Which do you use most?
I'm sorry, here is an explanation of some of the names in Hebrew. Many of them were eventually "translated" to things like "The Lord" and "On Most High" and such, when quite a few of them were either proper names or parts of proper names in the languages they were taken from. That is where the discrepencies lie. Very similar to how some words and names, when translated to another language, immediately sound either common-usage or hold less specific meaning. Many American/English names, when translated to their etymological roots, are not intended now for what they translate back to. This is the case with many instances of translation from Hebrew and some other passages in the modern Bible. As a caveat, I am aware that there now exist versions that actually include more than one translation for much of the text. One such copy is what initially created my interest in the differences of translation.
[ July 16, 2004, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, when I'm dealing with something where individual word choice matters, I use the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Rivka and I have already established that the only substantial difference between that "Christian version" and the "Jewish version" she uses is that the footnotes are in Latin.
Perhaps you meant to say "English translation" rather than "Christian version"?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's where it gets shaky. You see, some non-English translations, especially new ones, are more directly translated from reference, where older ones were not. They were often translated from a Latin or other base reference translation. Latin was a favorite of the Catholic church, which doesn't necessarily mean all churches, but is the largest of all the Christian churches and a good meter to measure by. It's not just English versions that have been translated "down" like that, though, because it isn't just the strict words themselves that are the issue, but keeping them in the same form (proper or common) and context as the original Hebrew.
I didn't say that the Christian versions I've seen are wrong, I said that they are missing some of the proper names attributed to the god and translated "down" to things like "The God" and "The God of Israel" and stuff like that. This, I posit, it where the difference in naming stems from between the two. Something got lost in the translation, and got picked up in another form.
Oh, and cool version. I wish I could afford one of those, but all the versions I acquired were donations. I guess the people who had that book weren't ready to let it go quickly.
[ July 16, 2004, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Justa, the text of the Biblia Hebraica isn't a translation. It's the Hebrew text, from the Lennigrad Codex.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, no. When I mentioned non-English translations, I wasn't talking about yours. Sorry if I seemed to be.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
The point I’ve been hinting around, btw, is that there is no such thing as a “Christian version” that can be compared to a “Jewish version” and said to be different. There are differences in translations, both in versions translated by Jewish groups and in versions translated by Christian groups. But those are caused by different languages, not different religions. (Excluding, of course, some “paraphrases” that have been written with an ideological bent. I’m talking about the straight translations here.)
It's some weird urban legend that the Christian "Old Testament" is substantially different from the Hebrew Bible. I try to dispell it whenever I can.
posted
Well, the version you use is not quite the same as the generally-used books, but I see what you mean.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to point out once again that even though the Matthew version of the geneaology includes women it is the Luke version that is thought to be Mary's geneaology (due to the way it is worded at the beginning about Mary being Joseph's wife) and the Mathew one that is traditionally thought to be Joseph's.
posted
I love discussions about Jewish stuff and how it compares to Christian stuff. I got some "Jewish blood" (if you want to call it that) from my Dad, but I was raised Christian. I'd love to learn as much as I can about the "other half" of me. I feel frustrated that I wasn't encouraged to learn about the Jewish customs, etc. because I was a Christian. Christianity doesn't exclude Judaism, I don't think.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wasn't YHWH the only revealed Proper Name given? You may be referring to El/Elohim - I was under the impression that was more an extension of a god-title, since other idolatrous gods are referred to (in groups, yes) as elohim, but only for the singular "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" is the pluralistic Elohim used. Under the impression it was used sort of like "Head God/Ultra-God"
--
And speaking of 'Christian Version', most english translations, from the KJV forward, DO used the term LORD (in capital letters, to distinguish from Lord, a translation of 'adonai') to replace YHWH, more out of tradition than anything. (I believe even in some manuscripts the vowels for the Hebrew 'Lord', Adonai were placed above the YHWH in the text, so that it would be read as such instead of speaking the Name. That's where we get the inaccurate 'Jehovah'/YaHoWaH rendering) I believe the KJV only actually spells out JEHOVAH twice, although I may be mistaken on that point.
EL, ELOHIM and most deriviations thereof are generally translated as GOD.
A note that even the Jewish Publication Society's translation of the TANAKH uses this convention.
I'm only aware of two well-used translations that institute regularly a rendering of the Revealed Name - the decidedly Catholic 'New Jerusalem Bible' (which renders YHWH as 'Yahweh', thought to be the most correct rendering), and the Jehovah's Witness' 'New World Translation', which liberally renders 'Jehovah God' throughout (even placing it a few times in the New Testament).
posted
Most actually appear to be adjectival add-ons to the basic El/Elohim and YHWH, the additions of which to me still appear more as titles than proper names.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |