IslamiCity.org Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Religion - Islam > Interfaith Dialogue
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Genealogy of Jesus in the Bible  What is Islam What is Islam  Donate Donate
  FAQ FAQ  Quran Search Quran Search  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

The Genealogy of Jesus in the Bible
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
islamispeace View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2187 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote islamispeace Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 April 2014 at 7:49pm
Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

islamispeace, here is the relevant passage from the Talmud (Talmud Shabbat 104b, Sanhedrin 67a);

"It is taught:
R. Eliezer told the sages: Did not Ben Stada bring witchcraft with him from Egypt in a cut that was on his skin? They said to him: He was a fool and you cannot bring proof from a fool.
Ben Stada is Ben Pandira.
R. Chisda said: The husband was Stada and the lover was Pandira.
[No,] the husband was Pappos Ben Yehudah and the mother was Stada.
The mother was Miriam the women's hairdresser [and was called Stada]. As we say in Pumbedita: She has turned away [Stat Da] from her husband."
                            
The information is presented as an explanation of why Ben Stada and Ben Pandira are both names for the same person. It is not a list of conflicting rumours, but is a clarification of the situation through dialogue.


What "clarification" are you talking about?  Who were these rabbis that they could speak about Jesus' parentage?  Were they alive in his time?  Did they actually witness Mary's alleged infidelity? 

No, what the Talmud illustrates is that the Jews had many contradictory stories circulating among them, none of which can be proven.  They were just rumors.  As I said, even Jewish law would reject such flimsy evidence.  
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)

Back to Top
1914 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar
Male
Joined: 06 July 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 50 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 1914 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 April 2014 at 12:58pm

Originally posted by 1914 1914 wrote:

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?

Of course he doesn�t answer the question with solid, concrete proof that would have been around during the time of Jesus or even his Apostles. His response . . .

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

� both Jews and Romans actually did question Jesus' parentage. They had various theories � Among the Jews, there were various rumors regarding Jesus' actual parentage as well.

Question! Various theories! Rumors! Islam, there are going to be rumors about God, Moses, Jesus and Adam, there will always be rumors, questions and theories, that makes it true? Where did the Pharisees actually challenge Jesus genealogies or anybody for that matter or is it another one of your speculator theories? Yeap!!!

As always, islamispeace offers his unfounded unscholarly opinion and that�s all it is, just his personal opinion. Not one shred of documented reference or resource. Aren�t you tired of speculating on IC and your blog without replicable evidence and or references?

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Among the Jews, there were various rumors regarding Jesus' actual parentage as well.

Not in the Gospel or the �so-called� New Testament� how about the Koran? You see how this works? If and when you do give a hint of evidence to back up your speculations, it�s hardly during the same time frame of the event. Plus, your Koran doesn�t even agree with that foolishness, let alone the Holy Scriptures. Honestly, going forward you need to find better resources if you are trying to discredit the Gospel, its making you look bad.

So again . . .
 
Originally posted by 1914 1914 wrote:

... 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.
 
 



Edited by 1914 - 24 April 2014 at 1:03pm
�The word of our God endures forever.��Isaiah 40:8
Back to Top
islamispeace View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2187 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote islamispeace Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 April 2014 at 7:48pm
Originally posted by 1914 1914 wrote:

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

In the newest article, I discuss the contradictory genealogies of Jesus as found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and why there is no way to reconcile the two. An honest look at the genealogies will result in only one conclusion: they both cannot be right. In fact, chances are that neither one is correct.

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.

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

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.

I call these stories; Jonny come lately extra biblical theories, a theory that came many centuries later after the fact.



LOL Obviously, 1914 never bothered to read the article since he repeats the same apologetic nonsense that I refuted in the article.  And if you had bothered to read the entire discussion I was having with Lachi, you would see that both Jews and Romans actually did question Jesus' parentage.  They had various theories that he was an illegitimate child.  Celsus believed he was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier (and thus not a descendant of David).  Among the Jews, there were various rumors regarding Jesus' actual parentage as well. 

But I know that you are a brainwashed and blind apologist, so it is no surprise that you avoided all the facts and then simply repeat the same tired old arguments that have been refuted over and over again.

The poor guy keeps trying his luck but keeps losing all this chips. Ouch


Edited by islamispeace - 23 April 2014 at 7:50pm
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)

Back to Top
1914 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar
Male
Joined: 06 July 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 50 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 1914 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 April 2014 at 6:30pm

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

 "In the Talmud,� Again, we see contradictory information. . . This is no different than the contradictions between the genealogies. 

Well hello! Like the Koran the Mishnah and theTalmud�s commentaries from Rabbis are not part of the sixty-six conical books of the Bible so it would contradict God�s Holy word. Come up with a better defense than that! As far as your wishful thinking on the contradiction, well, that went up in smoke as I single handedly corrected your gross mistakes and misunderstanding prior to this post here on Jesus.

 
�The word of our God endures forever.��Isaiah 40:8
Back to Top
Lachi View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Male
Joined: 18 February 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 140 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lachi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 April 2014 at 3:26pm
islamispeace, here is the relevant passage from the Talmud (Talmud Shabbat 104b, Sanhedrin 67a);

"It is taught:
R. Eliezer told the sages: Did not Ben Stada bring witchcraft with him from Egypt in a cut that was on his skin? They said to him: He was a fool and you cannot bring proof from a fool.
Ben Stada is Ben Pandira.
R. Chisda said: The husband was Stada and the lover was Pandira.
[No,] the husband was Pappos Ben Yehudah and the mother was Stada.
The mother was Miriam the women's hairdresser [and was called Stada]. As we say in Pumbedita: She has turned away [Stat Da] from her husband."
                            
The information is presented as an explanation of why Ben Stada and Ben Pandira are both names for the same person. It is not a list of conflicting rumours, but is a clarification of the situation through dialogue.

Edited by Lachi - 23 April 2014 at 3:26pm
Back to Top
Lachi View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Male
Joined: 18 February 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 140 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lachi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 April 2014 at 2:55pm
Originally posted by 1914 1914 wrote:


Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

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.


I call these stories; Jonny come lately extra
biblical theories, a theory that came many centuries later after the fact.


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
Back to Top
islamispeace View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2187 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote islamispeace Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 April 2014 at 3:12pm
Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

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.


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)

Back to Top
1914 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar
Male
Joined: 06 July 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 50 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 1914 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 April 2014 at 12:18pm

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

In the newest article, I discuss the contradictory genealogies of Jesus as found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and why there is no way to reconcile the two. An honest look at the genealogies will result in only one conclusion: they both cannot be right. In fact, chances are that neither one is correct.

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.

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

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.

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
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.