Immaculate Conception and Descendance

Say what!?

I'm asking about a particular scriptural passage - Luke 3 - and the fact that, on its face, it does not appear to be a geneology of Mary. If you think that it is a geneology of Mary, then demonstrate it. That's a dialogue.
 
Bandit said:
with someone who has already presented two very strong cases of antiChrist,
Click to expand...
What does this even mean?

If your goal is to goad me into a nasty bout of mean-spirited name calling, there is zero possibility of me biting. So save yourself the trouble.
 
very good. the beliefs have been stated.
so to you it appears that on its face, it is not her geneology. to me it appears that yes it is.

it is not my goal to be a name caller, but you are correct here about this, I will save myself the trouble.. I am not biting yours either.:)

carry on my brother & have a nice weekend.
 
Abogado del Diablo said:
I don't think I'm ignoring anything. "Mary" doesn't appear anywhere in the whole chapter:


Moreover, there is a geneology, but it starts with: "He[Jesus] was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki . . . "

One would think that a geneology of "Mary" would at some point mention her name, and maybe designate her as the daughter of somebody.
Click to expand...

Luke 3 is referring to Mary, not Joseph according to some Bibles. There is a conundrum here, as some believe Joseph and Mary come from Heli...(note the female pronoun prior to the beginning of the lineage). That would be due to Levitian tradition. (sp).

Hey, not cut in stone, just a thought.

v/r

Q
 
Quahom1 said:
Luke 3 is referring to Mary, not Joseph according to some Bibles. There is a conundrum here, as some believe Joseph and Mary come from Heli...(note the female pronoun prior to the beginning of the lineage). That would be due to Levitian tradition. (sp).

Hey, not cut in stone, just a thought.

v/r

Q
Click to expand...
Interesting. I'm going to research this now. It surprised me when you mentioned a geneology of Mary because I've never read it that way. Equally surprising is that none of the English translators have it that way. If that's true, shouldn't it be translated as: "He[Jesus] was the son of Mary, the daughter of Heli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki . . ."?

I just don't see how to reconcile this notion that this is Mary's geneology with the plain language of every English translation. But I'm going to research the Greek and see what appears, and get back to this issue.
 
So far as I understand it, there are two genaeologies given for Jesus in the NT, both demonstrating descent from King David - which I believe is a requisite for fulfillment of Messianic prophecy.

The trouble is, mainstream Trinitarian Christianity has God as the Father anyway - so the lineage fails to be an actual blood lineage of Jesus in a general sense of a man of the flesh and blood of David, as begotten in the flesh of the proceeding generations. So the idea that Jesus is physically descended from God, but also physically descended from David presents something of a paradox.

This is further confounded, I believe, by the fact that the two genaeologies given in the New Testament for Jesus do not agree.

Therefore it's something of an apologetic exercise in claiming that one genaeology represents Mary - when both apparently claim otherwise - as it is one of the simplest potential solutions in addressing the paradox.

2c - but feel to disagree. :)

Btw - as a general point, please let us not misconstrue other member motivations over their name. :)
 
The language of Luke 3 definitely reads as Joseph's genealogy, both in the Greek and in every English translation.

There is a widespread belief that there was a Jewish custom of substituting a woman's husband's name for hers when creating a genealogy for a woman. Thus, goes the argument, the reference to "Joseph" actually should be read as a reference to "Mary." I have several problems with this explanation:

(1) It wouldn't be a useful genealogy because nobody would know whose genealogy it even is. What would be the point of making a geneaology of woman if you are not allowed to mention the woman whose geneaology it is?

(2) Why is the author of Luke familiar with this supposedly Jewish tradition while the author of Matthew is not? Indeed, tradition holds, and their respective texts tend to support, that Luke was writing for a more gentile audience while Matthew's gospel was written for more "Jewish" Christians.

(3) Luke 1:36 says that Mary is Elizabeth's relative and Elizabeth, according to Luke 1:5 is descended from Aaron, which would make her a descendent of the tribe of Levi rather than the tribe of Judah (which is David's tribe). Not definitive certainly, but curious.

(4) Another curiousity: In verse 1:27, the author of Luke specifically points out that Joseph is a descendent of David but says nothing about Mary.

(5) Nobody seems to cite a non-apologetic source for this notion that Jewish genealogies of the time would not list women's names, even if only to identify the genealogy as that of a woman.

It's getting curiouser and curiouser . . .
 
Abogado del Diablo said:
The language of Luke 3 definitely reads as Joseph's genealogy, both in the Greek and in every English translation.

There is a widespread belief that there was a Jewish custom of substituting a woman's husband's name for hers when creating a genealogy for a woman. Thus, goes the argument, the reference to "Joseph" actually should be read as a reference to "Mary." I have several problems with this explanation:

(1) It wouldn't be a useful genealogy because nobody would know whose genealogy it even is. What would be the point of making a geneaology of woman if you are not allowed to mention the woman whose geneaology it is?

(2) Why is the author of Luke familiar with this supposedly Jewish tradition while the author of Matthew is not? Indeed, tradition holds, and their respective texts tend to support, that Luke was writing for a more gentile audience while Matthew's gospel was written for more "Jewish" Christians.

(3) Luke 1:36 says that Mary is Elizabeth's relative and Elizabeth, according to Luke 1:5 is descended from Aaron, which would make her a descendent of the tribe of Levi rather than the tribe of Judah (which is David's tribe). Not definitive certainly, but curious.

(4) Another curiousity: In verse 1:27, the author of Luke specifically points out that Joseph is a descendent of David but says nothing about Mary.

(5) Nobody seems to cite a non-apologetic source for this notion that Jewish genealogies of the time would not list women's names, even if only to identify the genealogy as that of a woman.

It's getting curiouser and curiouser . . .
Click to expand...
your opinion...;)

v/r

Q
 
it really is opinion. there are enough sources & studies for me to have the confidence, but again, that will depend on what someone is trying to prove.

I dont feel it is something i need to prove, but I know that some feel they need to or disprove it.
Here are some places that did a nice job but i doubt it will be enough for someone who does not believe the bible.
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/birth2.html

http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/geneal.htm

http://www.matsati.com/genealogy.html
 
Bandit said:
I dont feel it is something i need to prove, but I know that some feel they need to or disprove it.
Click to expand...
Too true. It really doesn't matter to me. The only reason I brought it up is because I'd never heard Luke 3 referred to as Mary's genealogy and never read or understood it that way myself. Either way, it really doesn't matter.

In any case, if someone is dead set on believing it is or it isn't, they aren't going to consider the question anyway. "All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

I was just curious about why this was thought of as Mary's genealogy when its plain language indentifies it as Joseph's. A more convincing case, to me, is made for the plain language. It's Joseph's genealogy.

In my opinion.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top