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  <12345>
Author
Message
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 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
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: 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
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: 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

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: 2255
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
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: 25 April 2014 at 8:08pm
Originally posted by 1914 1914 wrote:

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 . . .


So, 1914 is back again to humiliate himself further. 

He claimed that the Jews and the Romans never questioned Jesus' genealogy...until he found out that in fact they did.  So what does he do?  Let's see his response:

Originally posted by 1914 1914 wrote:

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?


LOL I think I just heard another one of 1914's brain cells die! 

First he claims that Jews and Romans did not question Jesus' genealogy.  When he realized this is not true, what does he?  Well, he changes his argument of course and resorts to special pleading.

Earth to 1914: If the Romans believed that Jesus' father was a Roman soldier or if the Jews believed that his father was a man named "Ben Stada", who was Mary's alleged lover, then obviously it means that they did not believe the made-up genealogies in the Bible!  I know it's hard with your limited number of brain cells, but recognizing the facts is important.  You need to focus! 

Originally posted by 1914 1914 wrote:

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.


It's so funny getting advice from a guy who makes irrational and inaccurate statements, gets refuted and then changes his argument instead of admitting his error.  What does the Quran have to do with this?  We are discussing the contradictory genealogies of Jesus found in the Gospels.  So far, in typical blind apologetic fashion, you have provided absolutely no refutation of my points.  Rather, you simply repeated the same garbage that one would find in Christian apologetic sources and which have been refuted by scholars for centuries.

The Christians could not agree on Jesus' genealogy.  They had to accept two different versions and somehow convinced themselves that even though there was no way to harmonize them, they were nevertheless both true. 

For their part, the Romans and the Jews did not care about the genealogies anyway or were unaware of them.  They had their own rumors and gossip about Jesus' parentage.

And even if they didn't question it, that still does not save the genealogies from the obvious contradictions.  1914, like most apologists, simply wants to avoid the evidence by moving the goal posts.  
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: 26 April 2014 at 11:01am
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:


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.  


The dialogue clarifies that the father of Jesus was Pandira, his mother was Miriam nicknamed Stada, and her husband was Pappos ben Judah. Bringing the apparently conflicting stories together, and comparing them, enabled them to see the situation in a new light.

The discussion as to why the same man was called ben Stada and ben Pandira also helps reflect another early Christian view of Jesus' parentage. Since the Jews knew his father was called Pandira (as Celsus and some early Christian writers agree), then Stada is assumed to be his family name - ie his legal father was Stada. Another however points out that Stada was the nickname of his mother, Miriam (Mary), hence why he was called ben Stada.

That detractors of Jesus used a derogatory nickname for his mother to refer to him, could be an early testament to how Jesus was often mentioned by Christians as the son of his mother (since Christians had the theological need for Mary to be a virgin and so ignored any human father - legal or otherwise). Her nickname became Jesus' name, hence the confusion that Stada was his father.

I should add that the belief that Jesus had no human father was not the only belief amongst early Christians. Some early believers took Jesus to have been a man born in the normal human way (as Luke's genealogy suggests). However the Rabbi's discussion shows that they had been exposed to the Jesus 'son of his mother' (ben Stada) belief at least often enough to ask how he could also be called ben Pandira.



Who were these rabbis?
Only two are mentioned by name - Eliezer and Chisda - and an unnamed one from Pumbedita.
It should be noted, first, that the Talmud often presents dialogue that could not have been an actual discussion between the people named. In this case it gives an opening statement by Eliezer, which is then discussed by others (a bit like discussing passages from scripture/laws or historical records, that when provided with other information and compared, allows a clearer understanding to be reached).

The opening statement is by Rav Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, who lived c.40-120AD. He was anonymously accused of apostasy, and after some thought decided that is was because he had had dialogue some years earlier with a follower of ben Pandira. He therefore was therefore alive at the same time as the early disciples of Jesus, and would be well placed to declare that ben Pandira and ben Stada were the same man.

The discussion is occurring in Babylonia.

Chisda is Rav Chisda who lived 217-309AD. He was a student of Abba Arika (175-247AD), who claimed descent from King David, and had relatives living in the regions where Jesus lived. Whether Chisda learnt his information from Arika, I do not know, but it is one possible route.

The sage from Pumbedita is unnamed, but the reference is to the Jewish academy at Pumbedita, founded by Rav Yehuda, and he is likely the person talking since he was a contemporary of Chisda and another student of Abba Arika. He was also a student of Samuel bar Abba (165-257AD). Yehuda was famous for never giving an opinion that did not come from one of these two teachers. Since Chisda (who studied under Arika) does not know the information about Miriam, it is possible this came from Samuel bar Abba, who lived and studied for a number of years in Israel.

Edited by Lachi - 26 April 2014 at 11:02am
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: 28 April 2014 at 7:59pm
Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

The dialogue clarifies that the father of Jesus was Pandira, his mother was Miriam nicknamed Stada, and her husband was Pappos ben Judah. Bringing the apparently conflicting stories together, and comparing them, enabled them to see the situation in a new light.


What are you talking about?  They were just mentioning various stories and brought them together.  So what?  What does that prove? 

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

The discussion as to why the same man was called ben Stada and ben Pandira also helps reflect another early Christian view of Jesus' parentage. Since the Jews knew his father was called Pandira (as Celsus and some early Christian writers agree), then Stada is assumed to be his family name - ie his legal father was Stada. Another however points out that Stada was the nickname of his mother, Miriam (Mary), hence why he was called ben Stada.


None of these statements can be proven.  They were just rumors.  These people were just spreading gossip.  Like I said, these oral traditions would not even be admissible under Jewish law.  If anything, the people who spread these stories without proof would be liable for prosecution. 

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

That detractors of Jesus used a derogatory nickname for his mother to refer to him, could be an early testament to how Jesus was often mentioned by Christians as the son of his mother (since Christians had the theological need for Mary to be a virgin and so ignored any human father - legal or otherwise). Her nickname became Jesus' name, hence the confusion that Stada was his father.
 

This is also just an assumption with no proof.  Furthermore, as Vermes observes:

"The occasional metronymic designation of rabbis found in Talmudic literature, i.e. the identification of a man through his mother, such as 'Rabbi Yose son of the Damascene woman', does not seem to carry any depreciatory connotation." (The Nativity, pp. 82-83)

Hence, just because Jesus was "often mentioned by Christians as the son of his mother..." does not automatically prove that Mary was an adulteress. 

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

I should add that the belief that Jesus had no human father was not the only belief amongst early Christians. Some early believers took Jesus to have been a man born in the normal human way (as Luke's genealogy suggests). However the Rabbi's discussion shows that they had been exposed to the Jesus 'son of his mother' (ben Stada) belief at least often enough to ask how he could also be called ben Pandira.


Some early Christians may well have believed that Jesus had a father, but that does not prove that his father was not married to Mary.  That is again just an assumption.

Luke clearly mentioned the virgin birth and as I pointed out before, there is no evidence that he was referring to another Joseph.  You are resorting to non sequitur fallacies. 

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

Who were these rabbis?
Only two are mentioned by name - Eliezer and Chisda - and an unnamed one from Pumbedita.
It should be noted, first, that the Talmud often presents dialogue that could not have been an actual discussion between the people named. In this case it gives an opening statement by Eliezer, which is then discussed by others (a bit like discussing passages from scripture/laws or historical records, that when provided with other information and compared, allows a clearer understanding to be reached).

The opening statement is by Rav Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, who lived c.40-120AD. He was anonymously accused of apostasy, and after some thought decided that is was because he had had dialogue some years earlier with a follower of ben Pandira. He therefore was therefore alive at the same time as the early disciples of Jesus, and would be well placed to declare that ben Pandira and ben Stada were the same man.

The discussion is occurring in Babylonia.

Chisda is Rav Chisda who lived 217-309AD. He was a student of Abba Arika (175-247AD), who claimed descent from King David, and had relatives living in the regions where Jesus lived. Whether Chisda learnt his information from Arika, I do not know, but it is one possible route.

The sage from Pumbedita is unnamed, but the reference is to the Jewish academy at Pumbedita, founded by Rav Yehuda, and he is likely the person talking since he was a contemporary of Chisda and another student of Abba Arika. He was also a student of Samuel bar Abba (165-257AD). Yehuda was famous for never giving an opinion that did not come from one of these two teachers. Since Chisda (who studied under Arika) does not know the information about Miriam, it is possible this came from Samuel bar Abba, who lived and studied for a number of years in Israel.
 

This only further proves that these were just legends and have no historical truth.   
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
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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