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


The Genealogy of Jesus in the Bible

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Author
Message
islamispeace View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2255
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote islamispeace Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 March 2014 at 11:57am
Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

Why does my theory not work? The only explanation you give for why it doesn't is that you say so. That is not a reason, only an excuse for not having an answer.


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.

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

That the genealogies are for two men called Joseph would explain why the gospel writers used different sources and provided different lines of decent. It also doesn't involve altering what the gospel writers actually put (as other theories do). Matthew has Joseph son of Jacob as the husband of Mary who was the mother of Jesus. Luke has Joseph the son of Heli as the man said to be the father of Jesus. Almost all traditions hold that Jesus was not the son of Joseph the husband of Mary (as Matthew implies). So therefore Luke is providing the genealogy of the other Joseph, the man claimed to be the 'real' father of Jesus.
 

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. 

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

It is indeed speculation. But speculation based upon what is actually written. Not speculation based on assumptions . You assume the two lines must be for a single person called Joseph, which then means the genealogies contradict each other, which aids in criticizing the reliability of the gospel accounts. However the two genealogies are for two different men called Joseph; that is why the genealogies are different and why they are identified as having different relationships to Jesus (Matthew - the husband of Jesus' mother; Luke - the reputed father of Jesus).


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)

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

Joined: 18 February 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 141
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lachi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 March 2014 at 4:38pm
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
Back to Top
Abu Loren View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 June 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1646
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Abu Loren Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 March 2014 at 3:31am
Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

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.


Laughing out very loudly.
Back to Top
islamispeace View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2255
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote islamispeace Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 March 2014 at 6:32pm
Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

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.


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)

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

Joined: 18 February 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 141
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lachi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 April 2014 at 6:43pm
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
Back to Top
1914 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

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
islamispeace View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2255
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
Lachi View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 18 February 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 141
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
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.