The Genealogy of Jesus in the Bible |
Post Reply | Page <1234 5> |
Author | |||
islamispeace
Senior Member Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Your theory is no different from the many that have been posited by Christian apologists to reconcile two contradictory genealogies. You claimed that Luke was suggesting that Mary was associated with a second Joseph, who may have been her lover. To support this speculation, you falsely claimed that Luke mentioned certain women from the Tanakh who were known for having had illicit sexual relations. But, as you have acknowledged, it was Matthew was mentioned, not Luke. Yet you also stated that Matthew mentioned the first Joseph, who was engaged to Mary. The pieces simply don't fit.
This is simply not true. Luke, like Matthew, mentions only one Joseph. In both gospels, Joseph is the man who was engaged to Mary (Luke 1:27, Matthew 1:18). There is no evidence of a second Joseph. How could Mary have been engaged to two Josephs? The fact that Matthew has a different genealogy from that of Luke cannot be explained in any way other than that they were simply based on different sources. It may also be that both are simply made up genealogies. They both cannot be right since they both mention the same Joseph.
You are not speculating "based upon what is actually written". There is no evidence of a second Joseph in the written account. If Luke was indeed referring to another Joseph, don't you think he would have mentioned it? And don't you think that there would be something in the text to suggest this? If this Joseph was Mary' "lover", then why does Luke say elsewhere that she was engaged to him? |
|||
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
|
|||
Lachi
Senior Member Male Joined: 18 February 2014 Status: Offline Points: 140 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Thank you for your response islamispeace.
To answer your points I would only be repeating myself, to which you would repeat your same objections. We will get no where. It is indeed a difficult thing to see what is written, and not to think what is assumed. That there were two men called Joseph (one married to Mary, the other Mary's lover) is a theory that allows both genealogies to stand as valid. It does not agree with the conclusion in your blog, but it also doesn't involve any mental gymnastics. Edited by Lachi - 23 March 2014 at 4:38pm |
|||
Abu Loren
Senior Member Joined: 29 June 2012 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1646 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Laughing out very loudly. |
|||
islamispeace
Senior Member Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I disagree. Your theory is based on a lot of mental gymnastics. I showed why it does not work. The "two Josephs" theory is not supported by the written account. There is no evidence that Luke was referring to some other Joseph. By the way, a second Joseph is not found in the non-Christian sources which accuse Mary of adultery. The Roman philosopher Celsus mentioned that some Jews believed that Mary had an affair with a Roman soldier named Panthera. A similar name is mentioned in the Talmud, though here Mary (or Miriam) was married to a man named Stada but had an affair with a man named Pandera (see Geza Vermes, "The Nativity: History and Legend", p. 83). This lends more credence to the fact that Luke and Matthew both referred to the same Joseph. They simply had two conflicting genealogies of the same person. As for the legends of adultery on Mary's part, they are just that...legends. Why she was never convicted of adultery and stoned to death is beyond me. Maybe it is because there was no proof and people simply slandered a chaste woman. |
|||
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
|
|||
Lachi
Senior Member Male Joined: 18 February 2014 Status: Offline Points: 140 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
It is interesting that you mention Celsus. Early Christian writers identify the Panthera he mentions as the family name of Joseph (Bar Panther).
The Talmud identifies Jesus as the son of this Panthera/Pandera. This probably the same story that Celsus refers to. But the same passage in the Talmud tells us that Stada is really the nickname for Jesus' mother, Miriam, and that her husband was called Pappos ben Judah. Both Celsus and the Toldoth Yeshua identify Mary's husband as a carpenter (as the Gospels do), and the Toldoth names him as Yochanan from the house of David. We therefore have three names for Mary's husband - Joseph (Gospel), Pappos (Talmud) and Yochanan (Toldoth). The sources regarding Mary's lover give his name as Panthera/Pandera (Celsus/Talmud/Toldoth), which name is also called Joseph (Toldoth/Epiphanius/John Damascene). These extra-Biblical sources do substantiate the theory that Mary had a lover called Joseph (Bar Panther), who was not her husband. The Gospels then also give her husband the name Joseph. There is no substantial argument against the two genealogies presented in the Gospels as both being accurate - one for Joseph the lover, the other for Joseph the husband. Edited by Lachi - 22 April 2014 at 1:53pm |
|||
1914
Groupie Male Joined: 06 July 2013 Status: Offline Points: 50 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Another blog full of inaccuracy, allegations
and accusations I see, but no sound concrete reliable proof or evidence, to
back up your theory as always. Answer this question, the
scribes and Pharisees as well as the Sadducees were bitter enemies of
Christianity, and they would have used any possible argument to discredit
Jesus, they never challenged these genealogies, why? The same is true
regarding the first-century pagan enemies of Christianity, many of whom were,
like those Jews, learned men who would readily have pointed to any evidence
that these lists of Matthew and Luke were unauthentic and contradictory. But
there is no record that the early pagan enemies attacked Christians on this
point. What you both failed
to realize is that, Luke traced the line through David�s son Nathan,
instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7)
Luke follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus� natural descent from
David, while Matthew shows Jesus� legal right to the throne of David by descent
from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus� father. Both Matthew and
Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus� actual father but only his adoptive
father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from
the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus,
saying: �Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.� (Mt 1:16)
Notice that he does not say �Joseph became father to Jesus� but that he was �the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.� Luke is even more pointed when, after showing
earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: �Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son
of Heli.��Lu 3:23. Since Jesus was
not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God whether you agree
or not, Luke�s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a
son of David through his natural mother Mary. Actually each
genealogy (Matthew�s table and Luke�s) shows descent from David, through
Solomon and through Nathan. (Mt 1:6; Lu 3:31) You will also notice at
Nathan, Luke begins reckoning the genealogy through Jesus� maternal line, while
Matthew continues with the paternal line. We may conclude,
therefore, that the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths,
namely, (1) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir
to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary that the Koran
alludes to (I wonder why?), of David�s line, and (2) that Jesus was also the legal
heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive
father Joseph. (Lu 1:32, 35; Ro 1:1-4) If
there was any accusation made by hostile Jews that Jesus� birth was
illegitimate, the fact that Joseph, aware of the circumstances, married Mary
and gave her the protection of his good name and royal lineage refutes such
slander.
I call these stories; Jonny come lately extra
biblical theories, a theory that came many centuries later after the fact. |
|||
�The word of our God endures forever.��Isaiah 40:8
|
|||
islamispeace
Senior Member Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
You're still trying to make the pieces fit when they don't. The fact that the accusations of adultery on Mary's part are so contradictory would render it inadmissible in a court. Celsus clearly stated that Pandera was a Roman soldier, not a Jewish man named Joseph. Jews did not serve in the Roman army. Regarding the name "Stada", Geza Vermes states: "In the Talmud, Miriam, the mother of Jesus, was a hairdresser, the wife of a man called Stada, but she also had a lover by the name of Pandera. Hence Jesus was variously known as the son of Stada or the son of Pandera. For other rabbis Stada was the nickname of the mother derive from an Aramaic phrase sotat da, roughly translatable as 'that adulteress' (Tosefta Hullin 2:23; Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 104b)" (The Nativity, p. 83). Again, we see contradictory information. Was the husband's name "Stada" or was Miriam's nickname "Stada"? It is pretty clear that there were many false rumors circulating among the Jews. That's all they were: rumors. Even according to Jewish law, such accusations would simply not fly. You have even shown just how contradictory the information was. Was the husband's name. What was his name? Why do different sources provide different names? They all cannot be right. This is no different than the contradictions between the genealogies. They were not based on any discernible facts, just rumors. In fact, most of the genealogy of Jesus was clearly invented, just as the accusations against Mary were invented to discredit Jesus. |
|||
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
|
|||
Lachi
Senior Member Male Joined: 18 February 2014 Status: Offline Points: 140 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Far from being Johnny come lately stories, Celsus and the Talmudic stories about Mary's affair can be traced back to at least the late 2nd Century AD - certainly not 'many centuries later after the fact'. Epiphanius is the 4th Century, and John Damascene is the 8th Century. The Toldoth Yeshua is indeed more recent (earliest composition dated to 9th Century, but it contains material dated to the 6th Century). Most early Christian writers (back to the late 2nd Century) present a levirate marriage as the excuse for the contradictory genealogies in Matthew and Luke. Unfortunately, in their eagerness to show its logic, they are suspiciously inconsistent on how the matter should be presented, giving different names and family relationships, despite claiming to be using original genealogical material. The earliest presentation (the late 2nd Century Julius Africanus) even manages to contradict the gospel accounts, just to confuse things even more! There is however unanimous consensus that Mary had to have been a descendant of King David. This was paramount in order for Jesus to be truly the son of a virgin and from the seed of David. But it was usually presented as part of the levirate marriage theory, declaring Mary as a relative of Joseph, whilst still presenting both genealogies as being that of Joseph. The earliest specific identification of one of the gospel genealogies to that of Mary is no earlier than the 4th Century; mentioned in the work of St.Hilary of Poitiers. And he only presented it in order to reject it in favour of a levirate marriage explanation. So regarding the 'Johnny come lately' label, it seems the story of Mary's affair is at least co-equal with the levirate marriage explanation, and is definitely nearer the date of the gospels' composition than the Marian descent theory that you favour. Edited by Lachi - 23 April 2014 at 3:01pm |
|||
Post Reply | Page <1234 5> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |