jesus' lineage

[jb_farley]

so today I heard the whole pedigree of jesus, from Abraham to Joseph, three groups of fourteen generations (counting Jesus). It encompasses most of the big names of the OT- Solomon, Ruth, David, etc. In fact, one of the prerequisites for being the Messiah is that you come from the house of David.

Yet, a whole helluvah big deal was made that Joseph was not Jesus' father (at least, his real father). How and why the lineage's importance?

jb

[BobT]

A WAG here, but I would think that in Biblical times, it was still more important to know who your father was than your mother. Even though Joseph may not have been the biological father, he was considered Jesus' father by just about anybody else who was around at the time.

[Badtz Maru]

The reason is that the 'immaculate conception' was added to the story later. Christianity changed a LOT in it's first 400 years.

[jb_farley]

well no duh. What is the justification or rationalization given now?

jb

[malkavia]

*ponder* Didnt the lineage of David come to Jesus through Mary? I could've SWORN I heard a sermon on that somewhere back when I was still being forced to attend church on semi-regular basis.


The only reason it really matters now is that Christians are pretty adamant about the whole Jesus being the Messiah thing. And their proof is in the prophesies that he fulfilled. And one of those was that he must come through a certain lineage. So basically.. its their way of saying.. "See? Obviously its Him. He came through the right lineage and everything."

At least, thats my understanding of it.

[Kamino Neko]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
The reason is that the 'immaculate conception' was added to the story later.

Immaculate Conception != Virgin Birth.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that Mary was born without sin.

The fact that she was a virgin when she gave birth to her eldest son is a totally seperate aspect of her.

[More Cowbell]

The reason is that the 'immaculate conception' was added to the story later.
True, it was added much later, but to theology, not the NT. But what does the concept of Mary being born without sin have to do with the lineage of Jesus?

As for the OP, Jesus' lineage determined whether or not he was legally entitled to the kingship by being from the house of David. Jews claim he isn't (adoptive children don't have the same rights of inheritence), Christians claim he is (because if Jesus can't claim that right, he can't be the Messiah).

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by Mayor Quimby
[quote]Jews claim he isn't (adoptive children don't have the same rights of inheritence), Christians claim he is (because if Jesus can't claim that right, he can't be the Messiah).


Actually, Jews, for the most part, don't think of him at all...And there are other reasons Jews say Jesus isn't the messiah...

[jb_farley]

The reason is that the 'immaculate conception' was added to the story later. Christianity changed a LOT in it's first 400 years.

This I don't buy. Both the lineage and the "this guy was conceived through Holy Seed" are in the gospels. Although I agree that the Church has undergone incredible changes over its history, I don't think this is one of um.

jb

[2sense]

The geneology that the OP refers to is found in Matthew 1. Another geneology is found in Luke 3. My copy of The New American Bible ( an annotated papist translation ) gives the following note for Matthew:The geneology is artificially constructed out of three groups of fourteen names each, taken principally from Genesis, Ruth, 1 Chronicles, and 2 Kings. The list of names beginning with Abiud in 1,13 is unknown to the Old Testament. The number 14 is undoubtedly a mnemonic device, perhaps chosen because the numerical value of the three letters of David's name ( DVD ) yeilds in Hebrew the sum of 14.

That sounds like balanced commentary to me but the annotators drop the ball on the Luke geneology, noting only that it continues on all the way to Adam. It fails to point out that the geneologies are different, as a side by side look (http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/meta-q.htm) ( from http://www.earlygospels.net/ ) demonstrates.

The question is, why do the Evangalists fail to agree on Jesus' family tree?

[Navigator]

A fairly balanced explanation can be found here (http://www.webcom.com/ctt/fabprof4.html).

The two geneologies that 2sense mentions have a couple of satisfactory explanations. One is the Matthew list is of Joseph, and the Luke list is of Mary. Having married Mary, Joesph also inherited her geneology as well, IIRC, the tradition was a little more solid than the current 'in-laws' of western society.

Any good commentary of Matthew and Luke will shed some light to the issues involved.

HTH, Peace.

[More Cowbell]

[/quote]Actually, Jews, for the most part, don't think of him at all...And there are other reasons Jews say Jesus isn't the messiah...[/quote]
I wouldn't go as far as saying they don't think of Jesus at all, and certainly not in the context of their faith. But if you go to any Jewish website, you can almost guarantee that Jesus is mentioned in one way or another. I think the Jews don't speak enough about him. It urks me that Judaism and many of it's core beliefs are so mis-represented by Christianity and never truly defended by the Jews. I understand that not wanting to convert others is a tenet of Judaism, but I don't see anything wrong when their sriptures are misrepresented so often. I thought it was the Jews responsibility to inform the Gentile world about the Torah and then let them make up their mind. Personally, I think they present a much better arguement on all fronts on why Jesus is not the messiah when they bother to speak up.

A fairly balanced explanation can be found here. Well balanced how? A christian apologetics site will not present a well balanced explanation. First of, the first question is based on a false premise, interpretting a Genesis verse as one referring to the Messiah. Here is a list of verses that refer to the Messiah: Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20, Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39, Ezekiel 38:16, Hosea 3:4-3:5, Micah 4, Zephaniah 3:9 ,Zechariah 14:9 ,Daniel 10:14. Any other OT verses quoted by Christianity are usually taken out of context to try to convince others that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied about.

The question is, why do the Evangalists fail to agree on Jesus' family tree?
They HAVE to come up with explanations for this for their claim of Jesus to be the Messiah. You can't have a faith without a foundation, and Jesus being heir to the throne of David is one of them.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

It certainly can be argued that "Y" was "of the House of David". And, of course, by a miracle, anything is possible.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by Mayor Quimby
I wouldn't go as far as saying they don't think of Jesus at all, and certainly not in the context of their faith. But if you go to any Jewish website, you can almost guarantee that Jesus is mentioned in one way or another.


Well, but, if Jesus is mentioned, it's done in reaction, because Christianity is dominant here, and you get tired of answering "Why don't you believe in Jesus?". But, Jesus is about as important to Judaism as a faith as Buddha is.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Actually, my WAG is that if JC had not been lauded as the Messiah*, he would be quoted today, as one of the rabbis in the house of Hillel. Perhaps, tho, a very minor one, but I like to think not.


* and especially if there had not been all that terrible anti-Jewish activity by some who claimed to be "Christians".

[Spookyblack]

Luke, I am your father !

[Sofa King]

But isn't Jesus considered a prophet by both Judaists and Muslims? Or is he just Robert Tilton without the ability to make people's hands tingle through the television?

Did, um, did I mention that I passed out in the National Cathedral the other night? That's probably gonna cause some problems at the pearly gates.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by Sofa King
But isn't Jesus considered a prophet by both Judaists and Muslims? Or is he just Robert Tilton without the ability to make people's hands tingle through the television?


I don't know who Tilton is, but Jesus isn't considered a prophet by Jews. He is by Muslims, though.

And, I hope you're feeling better after having passed out.

[Sofa King]

I was feeling pretty good then, too, Cap. Thanks for straightening me out.

Here's a little Bobby T for ya; simplicity itself:

http://www.roberttilton.com/

Just send your money there. They take both checks and money orders. Regrettably, I cannot find the site that proudly displays the crutches and wheelchairs cast aside as a result of Robert's preachin', but I can assure you that the fellow is quite convincing, to the right sort of person.

[jb_farley]

This is creepy. My second reference to Consumtionjunction.com. I haven't even been there in weeks. Sigh.

Anyway, go into crazy crap, videos, and look for "Even god loves a good fart joke". Robert Tilton at his scary best.

jb

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden
It certainly can be argued that "Y" was "of the House of David".

??????????????????????????????????

Are you saying that God is descended from David??????????????? If so, you've stumped me on this one Daniel.

Zev Steinhardt

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden
Actually, my WAG is that if JC had not been lauded as the Messiah*, he would be quoted today, as one of the rabbis in the house of Hillel. Perhaps, tho, a very minor one, but I like to think not.


I'm afraid not, Daniel. He advocated violation of the Sabbath, among other things. He held that he was an intermediary between himself and God. I highly doubt he would have been considered a student of Hillel.

Zev Steinhardt

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Zev- actually the other way around- David was of the linage of G-d, as it was from G-ds image that Adam was made.

Hillel was famous for "cutting to the quick" and advocating a more practical interpretation of the Law. JC saying "The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the sabbath", and allowing starving men to gather & eat food, sounds rather Hillel-like to me. However, the JC that, later, accepted mote of a Meesiah-role, and did "hold himself out as an intermediary", did indeed, tuen from the accepted jewish path. Ie, if JC had not been/accepted the role of the Messiah, his teachings would have been in line with some of the rabinnical teaching of the time.

[smugg]

I humbly submit that Jesus had to prove he descended from David's line if he wanted the throne of an independant Israel - a theocratic monarchy, traditionally. It wasn't until Jesus failed to free Israel of Roman domination that his message was figured to have been more spiritual than political.

The only primary writings which exist in the New Testament are the writings of Paul, who never met Jesus personally (unless you count epileptic visions). I say this because it may be unfair to think Jesus advocated violation of the Sabbath - can you imagine anyone trying to quote you forty years from now without written documentation, let alone voice recordings or digital camcorders?

Also, there is scant evidence besides a philosophical similarity linking Jesus to Hillel. Paul, the true founder of Christianity, claimed to be a disciple of Gemaliel, though.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden
Zev- actually the other way around- David was of the linage of G-d, as it was from G-ds image that Adam was made.


But when a "house" is spoken of, it generally means "descendants of." For example, Moses' sons could certainly be considered of the "house of Aaron," but they were not kohanim. In that respect, God is most definitely not of the "House of David."


Hillel was famous for "cutting to the quick" and advocating a more practical interpretation of the Law. JC saying "The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the sabbath", and allowing starving men to gather & eat food, sounds rather Hillel-like to me.


Yes, Hillel's ruling were often lenient when compared with Shammai's. However, if one is literally starving and in danger of death, then even Shammai would permit desecration of the Sabbath. If they were simply hungry, however, then even Hillel would not advocate the Sabbath's desecration.


However, the JC that, later, accepted mote of a Meesiah-role, and did "hold himself out as an intermediary", did indeed, tuen from the accepted jewish path. Ie, if JC had not been/accepted the role of the Messiah, his teachings would have been in line with some of the rabinnical teaching of the time.

So, then, you're saying that if his views on the Sabbath had been accepted, he never would have uttered statements such as "none can come to the Father but through me...?"

Zev Steinhardt

[Danielinthewolvesden]

zev- No, what I am saying, is that if Jesus the man- had never made any Messianic claims, and had just been Jesus the rabbi/teacher & maybe prophet, he would likely be quoted today by some Talmudic scholars. But by the Messianic claims, He became outside mainstream Judaism.

And zev, you are correct-USUALLY, when when says "house", one means descendants thereof-but not always. Thus, by a stretch, and I will admit it is a stretch, one could certainly say that Adam was of the House of David, as well as the other way around.

And, it says the Apostles were "an hungered"- which I take to mean "weak with hunger", ie, perhaps not starving, but close to. Shammai would likely say NO, but Hillel?

You should tell the Board a bit about Hillel, zev. I think they would be surprized & illuminated. Many of JC's teachings were said 1st by Hillel.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden
And, it says the Apostles were "an hungered"- which I take to mean "weak with hunger", ie, perhaps not starving, but close to. Shammai would likely say NO, but Hillel?

Well, what does "close to starving" mean? Was there a risk of death if they didn't eat, and, if so, was there no way to get food without violating the Sabbath? If both of those are true, then I don't think Hillel, Shammai, or anybody would criticize them for picking the grain. If either of those circumstances were different, then both Hillel and Shammai would have had problems with their action. I don't really see how Jesus' teachings fit as part of Rabbinic Judaism at all...but maybe I'm just ignorant about it. Could you explain?

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden

And, it says the Apostles were "an hungered"- which I take to mean "weak with hunger", ie, perhaps not starving, but close to. Shammai would likely say NO, but Hillel?


If there would be no loss of life (and especially if it just meant being hungry a little longer) then, yes, Hillel would have said not to desecrate the Sabbath.


You should tell the Board a bit about Hillel, zev. I think they would be surprized & illuminated. Many of JC's teachings were said 1st by Hillel.

I'm not quite sure what you want me to say...

Zev Steinhardt