Mary, Jesus and the Holy Spirit

No maybe I'm wrong, but He did fulfilled the Levitical priesthood and brought it to an end.

That's a great point AITB!

HankD

[ August 03, 2002, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

lol! AITB, you know what, I thought about that when I was downstairs with the hubby and ran up to reply. Gees HankD I might have to revoke my happy priveledges for a moment lol!

Either my vacation was not long enough or it was too short but I'm losing my train of thought here... So the connection to Mary in regards to King and Priest are void here because of Melchezedek. But scratching my head now because now we are just tracing the lineage of Mary? Geneologies are not my thing. Yet He was born of a woman under the law, levitical?

Can someone PLEASE help me with my terms here??? Levitical? Mosaic? Born of a woman under the law (which one? Includes what?) Then after thats established I can once again regard this after the flesh, just as I once did Christ and then begin to pull some spiritual substance from this lol!

HankD I'm still happy Even after the broken connection But not really as it pertains to Mary herself but the drawing of King and Preist through her geneology.

AITB, you got that one!

Good job!

In Him Kim

 

Stay happy Star.

AITB is right.

Jesus is a better king than David and a better priest than Levi in every way.

HankD

 

No maybe I'm wrong, but He did fulfilled the Levitical priesthood and brought it to an end.

HankD we must have cross posted just a few minutes apart, I always loved your humility since the first day I came to this board. I see and agree with what your saying, the trouble I have is in seeing how Christ did this clearly for sake of argument. I mean, I agree because its written but its not thoroughly searched out by "me" to understand it all as it pertains to the levitical law and just how it was fulfilled in detail. Jim on the "all other religions" boards asks these kinds of questions, provoking thought and challenges the "one line answers" given in the new inviting the details to be given. I like that because that makes me know in myself how little I do understand and creates a desire to. I'm still looking into these things, because theres so much I don't know. This was funny though because we ran into looking at Mary's line and it backs into the law but then again Jesus being born of her makes us think of His titles and make those connections when scripture doesn't allow for that. Man, I can't believe I missed that one, I would have lost on "Christian Jeopardy"

In Him Kim

 

Simple. There's one in Matthew, and a different one in Luke. Both are claimed to be for Joseph; neither are claimed to be that of Mary.

That's just a story someone dreamed up in the 15th century to try to resolve the problem. It merely complicates things to come up with non-scriptural additions to support that idea.

 

But Galatian, what is non-scriptural about saying that Joseph "which was of Heli" means that a different relationship exists with him than the relationship he had with Jacob who actually "begat" him (Joseph).

I believe you are wrong saying that this point of view is non-scriptural.

It is clear to me that Father-son (Joseph-Jacob)relates to "begat"
and that "of Heli" without the words "son of" or "begat" at least has the possibility of a father-in-law (Joseph-Heli) relationship.

But just for the record Galatian I would like to know along with AITB how do you explain the dual relationship. The answer you gave about a 15th century monk did not address your own personal point of view.

May we know what it is?

HankD

[ August 03, 2002, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Yup, I knew it. What did I tell you folks? It makes no difference at all what evidence is laid out before Galatian; there is no way he changes his mind away from what he has been taught. The Roman Catholic church has done a good job on you, Galatian!

TAKE A LOOK! Just how stupid do you think the Gospel writers and the early church were, anyway?????

You think no one noticed that "Joseph had two genealogies"?

They knew better. They knew what was being said. Why don't you? Why CAN'T you? This was nothing invented during the Reformation or any other time -- we know exactly what was being said by the way Luke said it. It's OK to accept evidence that indicates you have been wrong. It really does indicate strength of character to be able to look into something yourself and then discover you have been wrong and admit it.

The road doesn't kill one. I know. I've walked it a number of times!

The early church was not stupid; they could read. They were not ignorant of these 'problems.' But, for some reason, they knew they were not problems, didn't they? It is these supposed "problems" which are new; not what is really being said or the understanding of it.

 

Hi Helen,

OK, it looks like Galatian isn't going to 'fess up.

What is the RCC dogma concerning the two geneologies of Christ?
Do they say that one of them is in error?

I am a former Catholic and don't remember anything related to this.

Thanks
HankD

[ August 04, 2002, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

The following is an excerpt from New Advent, the online Catholic encyclopedia:

Heli the Father of Joseph

Heli (Gr. HELEI--Luke 3:23) is evidently the same name as the preceding. In Luke he is said to be the father of Joseph, while in Matt., I, 16, Jacob was Joseph's father. The most probable explanation of this seeming contradiction is afforded by having recourse to the levirate law among the Jews, which prescribes that when a man dies childless his widow "shall not marry to another; but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother" (Deut., xxv, 5). The child, therefore, of the second marriage is legally the child of the first (Deut., xxv, 6). Heli having died childless, his widow became the wife of his brother Jacob, and Joseph was the offspring of the marriage, by nature the son of Jacob, but legally the son of Heli. It is likely that Matt. gives the natural, and Luke the legal descent. (Cf. Maas, "The Gosp. acc. to S. Matt.", i, 16.) Lord A. Hervey, Bishop of Bath and Wells, who wrote a learned work on the "Genealogies of Our Lord Jesus Christ", thinks that Mary was the daughter of Jacob, and Joseph was the son of Jacob's brother, Heli. Mary and Joseph were therefore first cousins, and both of the house of David. Jacob, the elder, having died without male issue, transmitted his rights and privileges to the male issue of his brother Heli, Joseph, who according to genealogical usage was his descendant.

Excuse me dear brother Galatians and you accused us of non-scriptural additions!

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07204b.htm

[ August 04, 2002, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

My post seems to have been missed so here is part of it again:

As HankD mentioned, "the son" is not in the original text. It is grammatically correct to say that son of Heli is refering to Jesus' immediate male ancestor on his mother's side of the family.

Compare this sentence as HankD has mentioned would be better translated,

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was of Heli,

with this sentence:

The young boy, whose sister drinking a coke, which was playing in the sand was content.

it could be either the sister or the young boy who was playing in the sand, the sister could be playing in the sand while drinking a coke, but it could also mean that the boy has a sister who is drinking a coke but it is the boy who is playing in the sand, not his sister. Luke 3:23 can be read in the same way, with Heli being the first male ancestor in Jesus' geneology from his mother's ancestry. Basically the referant of the phrase "which was of Heli," is Jesus, not Joseph even though the phrase comes after the phrase about Joseph. Such a reading of the verse is both gramatically correct and explains the difference of geneologies.

 

In a biological sense, he can't. Hence, at least one of the geneologies cannot be true, as it represents itself.

Obviously, they aren't. They both represent that they are Joseph's geneologies.

You're missing the obvious. At least one of them isn't what it says it is.

There is no "Catholic explanation". There are different opinions on what it means. The "it's really about Mary" story was apparently originated in the 15th century, by an admitted fraud and forger.

We have three possibilities:

1. Joseph had two fathers, only one of them biological.

2. One of the geneologies is incorrect.

3. Both geneologies are correct, but one is wrongly attributed to Joseph.

Which do you think is right?

The Bible is not inerrant, unless rabbits chew cud. They don't, but the Bible says that they do.
There are many things like that in the Bible, but it makes no difference to a Christian.

The Bible takes its authority on tradition, and on the inspiration and scholarship of the people who compiled it. A canonical version of the Bible came very late in our history.

 

Number 1

Joseph had a father-by-biology named Jacob.
Joseph had a father-in-law named Heli.

HankD

[ August 04, 2002, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

They are both true. It is you who is having the problem.

No, they don't. Luke makes that pretty clear!

Oh really? What about the Summa Theologica, a short form of which on this question can be found here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/403103.htm and which says the following (and a lot more!):

Various answers have been made by certain writers to this objection which was raised by Julian the Apostate; for some, as Gregory of Nazianzum, say that the people mentioned by the two evangelists are the same, but under different names, as though they each had two. But this will not stand: because Matthew mentions one of David's sons--namely, Solomon; whereas Luke mentions another--namely, Nathan, who according to the history of the kings (2 Kgs. 5:14) were clearly brothers.

Wherefore others said that Matthew gave the true genealogy of Christ: while Luke gave the supposititious genealogy; hence he began: "Being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph." For among the Jews there were some who believed that, on account of the crimes of the kings of Juda, Christ would be born of the family of David, not through the kings, but through some other line of private individuals.

Others again have supposed that Matthew gave the forefathers according to the flesh: whereas Luke gave these according to the spirit, that is, righteous men, who are called (Christ's) forefathers by likeness of virtue.

But an answer is given in the Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test. [Part i, qu. lvi; part 2, qu. vi] to the effect that we are not to understand that Joseph is said by Luke to be the son of Heli: but that at the time of Christ, Heli and Joseph were differently descended from David. Hence Christ is said to have been supposed to be the son of Joseph, and also to have been the son of Heli as though (the Evangelist) were to say that Christ, from the fact that He was the son of Joseph, could be called the son of Heli and of all those who were descended from David; as the Apostle says (Rm. 9:5): "Of whom" (viz. the Jews) "is Christ according to the flesh."

Augustine again gives three solutions (De Qq. Evang. ii), saying: "There are three motives by one or other of which the evangelist was guided. For either one evangelist mentions Joseph's father of whom he was begotten; whilst the other gives either his maternal grandfather or some other of his later forefathers; or one was Joseph's natural father: the other is father by adoption. Or, according to the Jewish custom, one of those having died without children, a near relation of his married his wife, the son born of the latter union being reckoned as the son of the former": which is a kind of legal adoption, as Augustine himself says (De Consensu Evang. ii, Cf. Retract. ii).

This last motive is the truest: Jerome also gives it commenting on Mt. 1:16; and Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church history (I, vii), says that it is given by Africanus the historian. For these writers says that Mathan and Melchi, at different times, each begot a son of one and the same wife, named Estha. For Mathan, who traced his descent through Solomon, had married her first, and died, leaving one son, whose name was Jacob: and after his death, as the law did not forbid his widow to remarry, Melchi, who traced his descent through Mathan, being of the same tribe though not of the same family as Mathan, married his widow, who bore him a son, called Heli; so that Jacob and Heli were uterine brothers born to different fathers. Now one of these, Jacob, on his brother Heli dying without issue, married the latter's widow, according to the prescription of the law, of whom he had a son, Joseph, who by nature was his own son, but by law was accounted the son of Heli. Wherefore Matthew says "Jacob begot Joseph": whereas Luke, who was giving the legal genealogy, speaks of no one as begetting.

Document that, please. You are fond of flinging around statements like these with absolutely no documentation at all. Document that.

You have been answered on this so many times I can't believe it, Galatian. On the CARM forum we went through this at least three times. Here is the short answer from my Word file for you:

Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6)

The clue here is in the meaning of 'cud.' Rabbits and hares pass two kinds of stools. One is feces. The other is a mucous-covered green pellet which the rabbit will re-ingest, licking it off its anus. These are generally passed in the early morning hours. If cud is defined as being only what a ruminant, or animal with a special stomach division which brings up food for chewing, can have, then rabbits and hares do not chew the cud. However if cud is defined as undigested matter which is re-ingested, then rabbits and hares certainly do chew the cud. Here again we have a grouping which includes a unique group with a general group, in much the same way bats were included with the birds. It makes perfectly good sense seen from their point of view.


"Their point of view" had been explained a few paragraphs earlier under the objection that bats had been grouped with birds in the Bible. Here is that paragraph:

the bat is a bird (Lev. 19:19, Deut. 14:11, 18)

We have an unfortunate tendency to see things through our own eyes and figure that those who don't see things the way we do are wrong. The Linnean taxonomic system, and our more extended one, were not only not known to the ancient Hebrews, such distinctions would have served them no purpose and thus would probably not have interested them. If one notices in the verses cited, as well as many other places in the Bible, the animals are classified by locomotion. Flying animals were classed with birds, including bats. Swimming animals were classified with fish, including whales and dolphins. The only problem with verses such as these is our own myopic ethnocentricity.

Galatian, if a Christian thought that God's Word needed man's ability to make sense of it rather than being the straightforward truth, then Christians would be trusting man more than God. This is not what a Christian knows or does. We KNOW God's Word means what it says and says what it means. The fact that you don't understand it and, in fact, refuse to understand it, says a whole lot more about your relationship with God than it does about the Bible.

The nicest word I know for that statement is "horse plunky." The Bible takes its authority from God. It is a series of personal eyewitness narrations where it speaks of history -- including Genesis. The Roman Catholic church, which is what you are referring to, is basically a pagan religion using Christian terminology, the ancient statues of gods and goddesses renamed for saints, the practices of the ancient Babylonian apostacy in its rites, and dependance on man rather than God for salvation. It has done more to harm people through the ages, and in the name of Christ, than Hitler or Pol Pot or any of the rest of them ever dreamed of. You, sir, make me so angry with your repeated assertions of falsehoods even though you have been presented with the facts proving you wrong over and over again for at least five years now!

Open your eyes, Pat Parson, and quit spouting RC dogma as though it were the truth. It is not. The truth is available to you if you ever want it, straight from God's Word, straight from creation, straight from Jesus Christ. You don't need the Roman Catholic church for any of those.

For those who want a documented and referenced work tracing the origins of the heretical Roman Catholic church, I highly recommend Hislop's Two Babylons now on the net here:
http://philologos.org/__eb-ttb/default.htm

 

BTW, Helen is quite wrong about Catholicism leading me to the conclusion that both Luke and Matthew purport to have geneologies of Joseph. In fact, there are Catholics who agree with Helen.

My opinion is that they are both what they say they are, geneologies of Joseph. And yes, I've heard all the non-scriptural reasoning why they aren't what they say they are.

But it will take more than inventive stories to change my mind. Ironically, the only way to "save inerrancy" here is to abandon inerrancy, and try to invent alternative explanations.

I find none of them as compelling as Scripture itself. Sorry.

 

*grabs a megaphone*

If we take a close look at the grammar and we see that innerancy is maintained because Heli is Jesus' ancestor, not Joseph's.

 

Well now that's wonderful, Galatian. Then you know also it is wrong to pray to Mary, or the 'saints', that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations after Jesus was born, that they had other children, that transubstantiation is not biblical, that the creation of plants and animals was by kind, that creation of the entire universe and earth and all beginning populations as well as man himself (generic) was in six literal 24 hour days, that there is no such thing as purgatory, that the Pope is an imposter in the church, and that Roman Catholicism is at the core of it entirely pagan.

You've come a long way, baby, if you really meant what you said there!