Only legally, not genetically. This is an often overlooked point in the birth of Jesus. He wasn’t of the flesh, as we are, but of the Spirit, and truly is the Unique One. And that one and only status was the only means to saving us.
2 Likes
The Mormon Church is the quintessential fort Knox of genealogy. The ancient to modern cultures continue treating women badly by patriarchs from bad, ugly and little good. The Bible is the consortium theatre to identifying those males’ vital sexually transmitted viral called egos of sexual entitlement, convenient rules made up over night, by patriarchal punks in accommodating their daily R&R in their pants, regardless, ancient or modern, these male culture drivers called themselves testosterone gone amok. The Muslims, Mormons, and the cowardice religions that refused to be identified that loved more than one wives are tragedies for the plurality of every decent women on earth. The tragedy of Mormonism, Muslims and unidentified religions are, a single death of a patriarchal punk makes a dozen or two widows with true DNA mixed colors of untraceable thousand of halves siblings. The patriarchal widowers are bereaved; relieved for more adventures breeding many more unwanted children running on the streets. To know your ancestors of generation from generation in modern place before marriage seek the DNA tests. A bride no faults of hers does not aware the three generations back she may be marrying a half brother for a husband.
The X-Rated Gospel is fascinating in its bolstering male sexual egocentric. It has lost its key to human breeding seeding in biblical genealogy from Genesis to the Gospel of Matthew? Of course I heard that the Old Testament is done with. In avoiding listening to this that none of us can boast about the morality of those birthing ancestors to which records of many generations did not show that Adam and Eve were married. Don’t blame Eve.
Don’t blame Rehab. Don’t blame Tamar. Don’t blame women. They were females not the only species who prostitute themselves for money; they are the only ones that are honest about it. It is the men silent consent patriarchal sinners who make no pretensions to being good on one day out of Seventh.
For example, a culture of convenient, the carry-on, the endless ugliness, from the GC patriarchal open wide consent of men made rules ancient or modern to destroy period the magnificent colorful tapestry to Women Ordination to oppressively suppressed the colorful rights of women. We are full of it taking the pain to search genealogies. How about begin now treating women very well with decency to their future and future generation best the best genealogies.
2 Likes
The focus and the discussion is 180 out. The point of Biblical history is to expose the faults of man and the Grace of God despite the the evil that lurks in the heart of man. We are saved by Grace, let us focus on the Cross and its implications. Tamar and Judath is us we just lack either the courage or the opportunity without the saving Grace of God. Tom Z
2 Likes
Please define “real”.
2 Likes
GREAT historical essay.Thanks!!! Let Matthew have fun with his preferred genealogical emphases. This shows the errors that can occur when one reads these Jewish books casually. One big problem Jesus had throughout his life is that he was regarded(esp by the Pharasaic establishment) as illegitimate. That is, he was not born at the right time of the year. It was established practice that Jewish dynasts who were looking for the coming of a Messiah(as well as those descendants of the olden priest-caste)and therefore the restoration of the David mlonarchy would take wives from among the "virgins"Women attached to the tribe of Dan who were all called Mary in honour of Miriam sister of Moses. Priestly and royal dynasts who were all waiting on the restoration of the David monarchy married these women and all were partial celibates who had sex only in the month of December so that the dynast would be born in September, the month of the holy festivals. Jesus was perhaps born about six months too early and so was not accepted by the Pharisees. The priests of the Sadducean Abbeys used to search the banks of the Wady Kidron where pregnant Jewish girls from Jerusalem would have their illegitimate babes. These were rescued and trained to serve in the abbeys. They were required to swear a thorn over their forehead to announce their illegitimate status.The Sadducees did not require Jesus to wear a thorn, but the Pharisees insisted that he be crucifi8ed with a CROWN of thorns. Genealogy apart, Jesus was NOT of the line of David, but was the son of God himself.
2 Likes
I find the New Testament writer’s particular use of midrashic interpretation an important tool to understand what Matthew is about. Matthew himself uses perhaps the finest example of one aspect of midrashic interpretation when he quotes an Old Testament verse to underline that Jesus is a fulfilment of OT prophecy - the flight to Egypt. And throughout his gospel Matthew turns again and again to the OT to validate Jesus’ fulfilment of OT prophecy (a device used so eloquently in the letter to the Hebrews).
But back to Matthews use of the flight to Egypt - We know that the Old Testament verse which he quotes has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus, and yet he finds a valid ‘proof’ in that text. I do not doubt that he uses the genealogies in the same manner.
I myself have often pondered the difficulties which my contemporary mind has had to grapple with when considering how NT writers sometimes seem to ‘twist’ OT history to fit the phenomenon of Jesus. Looking at the broad sweep which the gospel accounts make of the life of this altogether remarkable God-Man I suppose I too, living at the time of Jesus, would have been a Matthew in trying to find the best words to describe him to fellow Jews…
Mark of course does it - in my opinion anyway - in a far more subtle way, seldom calling on OT passages to validate the altogether divine-human Jesus. There are subtle indications here and there in Mark’s gospel which tell us who Jesus truly is, but finally he leaves it up to us to make our minds up - a thoroughly ‘unJewish’ way of going about things, but surely for the modern mind an altogether acceptable and entirely persuasive literary device. But then, of course, it is believed that Mark is not necessarily writing to Jews . . .
Elaine, in a strict sense what you say is true about “proof.” Of course with that diffinition we can not trust the Augustus Caesar or Cicero ever lived
We know Gospel material or a proto-Gospel was written before 70 AD as I have shown because Paul quotes from it in 1 Cor. 11
Well Elaine, Caesar’s Gallic War (written between 58 and 50 BC) and only extant nine or ten manuscripts and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar’s day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC-AD 17) only thirty five survive; these are known to us from twenty Manuscripts, only one as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; The text of these extant portions of has two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. The codex of the tenth century The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight copies, the earliest AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest books we have are 1,300 years later than the originals. The situation with the New Testament completely different. If we can’t trust the NT then we certainly can’t trust most of any ancient history.
1 Like