Mary, Jesus and the Holy Spirit

[DHK]

There is another very good reason to believe that the genealogy in Luke is the genealogy of Mary. It has to do directly with the doctrine with the virgin birth, as well as some Old Testament prophecies. Genesis 3:15 speaks of "her seed" instead of "his seed." In any normal genealogy it always "his seed" that would be traced. Isaiah 7:14 mentions a virgin bringing forth a son. This was a sign to King Ahaz, a sign he did not understand, but a sign that would be fulfilled in the virgin birth of Christ. Isa.9:6,7 tells us that "a son is given."

Now in Jeremiah 22:24-30, we find a curse that is put on Jeconiah's house. Specifically:
28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?
29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD.
30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

No seed from Jeconiah could ever rule on the throne of David.
However, the Lord had promised to David in 2 Sam.7:16: "Thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee: thy throne shall be established forever."
But this promise could not be established through Jeconiah, that link had been forever cursed. It just so happens that Joseph, the legal father of Jesus was of this line. Their remained only one solution: Mary was a descendant of Nathan, another son of David (Luke 3:31). There is no other way that Jesus Christ could have escaped this curse except to be in the lineage of Mary. The fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy of the virgin birth is the only way the Lord could be true to His promise to David and His curse on Jehoiachin. The only way that Christ could legally be the son of David is through Mary's genealogy. I would think it very important to include her genealogy. The Jews and early Christians were not ignorant of these things.
DHK

 

[The Galatian]

Galatian observes:
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.

The nicest word I know for that statement is "horse plunky."

When do you think the first canonical version in any Christian churce was compiled, Helen? I think you'll be very surprised.

The Bible takes its authority from God. It is a series of personal eyewitness narrations where it speaks of history -- including Genesis.

In other words, you're claiming that the Bible is the word of God because it says it is. You've assumed what you intend to prove. Circularity is not a very convincing argument.

The fact is, scholarship was necessary, as was tradition as well as inspiration. If not, we would have nothing better than the numerous copies of various books that circulated in the early years of our faith.

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.

I sincerely hope you don't really mean that, Helen. Evil triumphs when it gets Christians to hate other Christians.

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.

Civil power, given to churches, inevitably leads to horror. Torquemada, Calvin, Luther, Cromwell, Saravanola, Cotton Mather, all had one thing in commmon; they believed that God had appointed them to torture and kill other humans in His name.

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!

It is not a good thing to be angry over disagreements, even of things you want very much to be true. Your attacks on Catholicism as pagan is saddening to me, but not infuriating.

Open your eyes, Pat Parson, and quit spouting RC dogma as though it were the truth. It is not.

The irony, Helen, is you are spouting a doctrine that was held by many Roman Catholics, and still is. The Catholics that hold it justify it on tradition, because there is no scriptural support for it. Ironically again, I'm not supporting it, because it's not Biblical.

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.

Of course you're right. Many Baptists, and those of other persuasions will be saved, without the Roman Catholic church. I'm quite sure that even with your anger at those of other Christian denominations, you will be saved. But this kind of violent anger incurs a cost which I sincerely hope will be spared you.

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:
" target="_blank">[url]http://philologos.org/__eb-ttb/default.htm

[/url]

Perhaps all of us would do better to merely try to be better Christians ourselves. That is the way to salvation, not by "proving" that other churches are evil.

 

[The Galatian]

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

No need to get upset, Hank. I've been trying to say it as plainly as I can.

What is the RCC dogma concerning the two geneologies of Christ?

There isn't one. There are some opinions.

Do they say that one of them is in error?

Depends on which Roman Catholic you talk to. At one time, maybe still so, most of them would have agreed with Helen. But they cited tradition that Mary was of the House of David as justification. Not scriptural, of course.

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

For a good reason, Hank. Hey, I've been impressed by the way you've managed to remain civil, even when your beliefs have been challenged. I'd really appreciate more of that.

 

[The Galatian]

Regarding of Helen's questioning the 15th century claim by Annius and his forgeries:

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Annius of Viterbo: The forger.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01541a.htm

In this work he published alleged writings and fragments of several pre-Christian Greek and Latin profane authors, destined to throw an entirely new light on ancient history. He claimed to have discovered them at Mantua. This work met at once both with believers in the genuineness of his sources, and with severe critics who accused him of willfulinterpolation, or even fabrication. The spurious character of these "historiansö of Annius, which he published both with and without commentaries, has long been admitted.

(the author in the Encyclopedia suggests that Annius himself may have been duped, but since he claimed to have found the forgeries on his property, I find that a little hard to believe)

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

While commentators generally agree that the genealogy found at the beginning of the first Gospel is that of St. Joseph, Annius of Viterbo proposes the opinion, already alluded to by St. Augustine, that St. Luke's genealogy gives the pedigree of Mary.

(goes on to list traditional sources and apocryphal texts that support this interpretation)

I do not know where in Augustine's writing he speaks of this tradition regarding Luke's ostensible geneology of Joseph being that of Mary. Nor do I find the tradition elsewhere before Annius speaks of it.

 

[HankD]

Dear Galatians,

Thank you for your response.
Really, you could have told me the about the RCC Levirite theory being predominant among RCC theologians.

A theory BTW which has some plausibility, however I am staying with the father/father-in-law explanation as it has more credence (imo) in that it is in keeping with the "seed of the woman" and the Virgin Birth account in the Luke context.
That Mary had Levite bloodlines as well as Judah adds another dimension (for me) to the Scripture:

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Christ the seed of the woman ended the geneologies of both king and priest.

King of Kings and as another brother pointed out a priest after the order of Melkisedec (King of righteousness).

and OBTW brother, it sounds unusual that an apparent adherent to RCC theology should object to the lateness (15th century) of the development of a doctrine/dogma of any kind. Point in case : The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

HankD

[ August 04, 2002, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[The Galatian]

Thank you for your response.

You're quite welcome.

Really, you could have told me the about the RCC Levirite theory being predominant among RCC theologians.

Well, it was. I was unaware to the degree that it became accepted in the 15th century. I was unaware that Augustine mentioned the belief. Since Annius, who popularized it, was found to have made spurious claims to understand Etruscan, and presented some fake inscriptions as genuine, the doctrine seems to have faded with his reputation.

A theory BTW which has some plausibility, however I am staying with the father/father-in-law explanation as it has more credence (imo) in that it is in keeping with the "seed of the woman" and the Virgin Birth account in the Luke context.
That Mary had Levite bloodlines as well as Judah adds another dimension (for me) to the Scripture:

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Christ the seed of the woman ended the geneologies of both king and priest.

King of Kings and as another brother pointed out a priest after the order of Melkisedec (King of righteousness).

Your idea is certainly an ingenious one. It seems unlikely to me.

and OBTW brother, it sounds unusual that an apparent adherent to RCC theology should object to the lateness (15th century) of the development of a doctrine/dogma of any kind. Point in case : The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Like the "Luke is actually talking about Mary, not Joseph as he says" idea, the Assumption is based on tradition, and not Scripture. Since Scripture itself is based on tradition, scholarship, and revelation, it is not necessarily an error to believe on that basis. But in this case, scripture clearly contradicts the idea.

Or so it seems to me. I find it highly unlikely that God would say "this is the father of Joseph" in one place and mean it, and then say "this is the father of Joseph" in another place and not mean it.

Again, thank you for your calm and civil demeanor; it is much appreciated.

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
In other words, you're claiming that the Bible is the word of God because it says it is. You've assumed what you intend to prove. Circularity is not a very convincing argument.

Here's one for you, the Catholic church claims that scripture says that they are "The Church", the Catholic church claims it decides what is scripture.

 

[AITB]

To The Galatian:

For the third time: how can you trust the parts in the Bible about what you need to know about God and Jesus, if some of the rest of it is just plain wrong?

If you're not going to answer then kindly tell me so...

AITB

 

[Helen]

otherHelen: He doesn't answer things he does not want to answer. Period. That's off of five years of seeing him on forums!

Galatian: forget the fifteenth century jazz. Here's the Jewish take

http://www.geocities.com/his_emissary/messiah3.html

In Luke 3:23-38, Yeshua's (Jesus) mother Mary's genealogy is recorded. Pay attention to verse 23.

"and when He began His ministry, Yeshua (Jesus) Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of (Yosef) Joseph, the son of Eli"

Notice Josef (Joseph), is listed here as the son of Eli and in Matthew as the son of Jacob. A better translation would be son-in-law of Eli. This is Mary's (Yeshua's Mother's) genealogy. As you can see, Mary's Line comes through David's son Nathan not Solomon! Is it not true that a person gets their Jewish ness from their mother and not their father? Yeshua is qualified to ascend to the throne of David based on his mother's unblemished genealogy.

emphasis mine

[ August 04, 2002, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

[AITB]

Originally posted by Helen:
otherHelen: He doesn't answer things he does not want to answer. Period. That's off of five years of seeing him on forums!

*sigh* thanks for the info.

If I don't want to answer something I try to post that I don't rather than posting nothing...

AITB

 

[The Galatian]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
In other words, you're claiming that the Bible is the word of God because it says it is. You've assumed what you intend to prove. Circularity is not a very convincing argument.

Here's one for you, the Catholic church claims that scripture says that they are "The Church", the Catholic church claims it decides what is scripture.

Er, no. The Catholic Church points out that revelation, scholarship, and tradition determine these things. But you're right. If it did what you said, that would be as much a circular argument as "the Bible is inerrant because it says so".

Both would be fallacious.

 

[The Galatian]

For the third time: how can you trust the parts in the Bible about what you need to know about God and Jesus, if some of the rest of it is just plain wrong?

Are you now telling me that there have not been errors in Scripture? How do you know that there still aren't. In spite of Helen's denial, rabbits do not chew cud. That has a very specific meaning. And then we get "well ______ used to mean something different in those days.", a dodge that covers any discrepancy at all.

Of course there are errors in Scripture. The KJV, and others were specifically compiled to reduce the number of errors.

I don't know of an error that attends directly to the message of the Bible, however. Do you? If it's important to you that the Bible be correct in the number of legs a grasshopper has, or whether or not rabbits are ruminants, then this is a major problem. Otherwise, you're with the vast majority of Christians, and don't have a problem.

So how can I believe that the Bible is true where it counts, if it sometimes has errors where it doesn't count?

How can we be sure the Bible is the word of God at all? Ultimately, we must have faith that it does. And I do. There's more. We have the tradition of Christians from the beginning. And we have extensive scholarship to determine what they wrote and what they thought of it.

That's enough.

If you're not going to answer then kindly tell me so...

 

[Helen]

otherHelen -- he usually rises to that bait, too, but I couldn't tell you at the time or he wouldn't. And rabbits do chew the cud. And the Bible is inerrant, and Mary's genealogy is in Luke, and....

LOL

 

[The Galatian]

Nope. Chewing cud requires a ruminant digestive system. Something rabbits don't have.

And, of course, the cud is partially processed in the stomach, and regurgitated. Rabbits defecate in the morning and eat the feces. Wrong end of the digestive system.

Not even close. Not even for a creationist. Worst case of blastopore confusion I've ever seen. But then, it might explain the quality of talk we get from creationists.

[ August 05, 2002, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: The Galatian ]

 

[Dualhunter]

Hares were prohibited as food according to the Mosaic law (Lev. 11:6; Deut. 14:7), "because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof." The habit of this animal is to grind its teeth and move its jaw as if it actually chewed the cud. But, like the cony (q.v.), it is not a ruminant with four stomachs, but a rodent like the squirrel, rat, etc. Moses speaks of it according to appearance. It is interdicted because, though apparently chewing the cud, it did not divide the hoof.

There are two species in Syria, (1) the Lepus Syriacus or Syrian hare, which is like the English hare; and (2) the Lepus Sinaiticus, or hare of the desert. No rabbits are found in Syria.

http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/hare.html

 

[The Galatian]

Rabbits and hares and pikas are lagomorphs. You can most easily tell them from rodents by the incisors. Lagomorphs have an extra pair behind the front pair.

If by "cony" you mean the rock hyrax, it's actually an ungulate. Even has tiny hooves. Anatomically, it's most closely related to elephants.

 

[Helen]

Galatian,

Because I am sure you would not intentionally lie to people here, I can only assume you have forgotten the many times rabbit digestion was expalined to you before. So here is a very detailed explanation, and near the end you will find that the rabbit most certainly does NOT re-ingest fecal pellete, but, rather, cecal pellets, which are quite different.

But then, we've been through all of this before, haven't we? Still, I am sure you are so busy with other things, you must have just forgotten...

http://www.rabbit.org/journal/3-3/digestibility.html

[ August 05, 2002, 02:36 AM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

[The Galatian]

Because I am sure you would not intentionally lie to people here, I can only assume you have forgotten the many times rabbit digestion was expalined to you before.

If I remember correctly, you did know that rabbits are not ruminants. I think we also explained why only ruminants produce cud. The rabbit lacks a rumin, and is unable to produce cud. All ruminants have four-chambered stomachs, and the first one, the rumin, is a storage chamber, where the material is broken down, and then regurgitated to be chewed and swallowed again.

Rabbits produce small pellets which they defecate, usually at night, and they eat these to obtain more nutrition from them. They are different than the usual pellets which expel undigestable cellulose that ruminants can digest.

So, we've got the wrong kind of stomach, the wrong digestive process, and the material eaten runs out the wrong end of the digestive tract. There's no cud to chew, for rabbits. Rabbits are not ruminants,and they don't chew cud. They can't produce cud, because they don't have a rumin to do it.

C'mon Helen.

 

[Clint Kritzer]

My whole problem with the rabbit/cud thing is this:

At the time of the writing of the Mosaic dietary laws, the Israelites were a nomadic tribe of over a million people. The Lord was good enough to them to give them manna and quail for their time in the desert but that diet would get old after a very short time.

Now, granted, these were ancient, some may even say primitive, people but nonetheless they were people who knew how to live off of the land. To assume that they were ignorant of the wildlife around them is rather arrogant of modern scholars, most of whom would, I suspect, die within a couple months under the same conditions. These people probably knew more about animal behavior than we've forgotten.

We run across arguments also about the grasshoppers having four legs as noted in Leviticus 11. I once tried showing a rather obnoxious atheist a website that explained that the hind legs of the grasshopper were considered an appendage other than legs by the ancient Jews. Of course, rather than saying, "oh! I didn't realize that," he argued it straight into the ground. I just shook my head at the computer screen. Like these nomadic people who were prone to locust swarms never picked up one of the insects and said "Hey! This thing has SIX legs! What were we thinking?"

Of all the things at which to try to aim criticism when discussing the Bible, animals and natural environment have to be the weakest. The Israelites did not have Latin yet and did not have had the same "kingdom, phylum, class, order" structure that we now recognize, but they CERTAINLY had an understanding of their environment. They had to! They would have died otherwise.

I'm just a dumb ol' country boy myself with no more than the required high school biology behind me, but even I can recognize that the Israelites and the author of the Mosaic texts had to have been aware of these things and wrote them for a reason. We're not talking about spontaneous generation or something. We're talking about an animals eating habits. These folks may have been primitive, but they weren't stupid.

You know, a physicist may be able to tell you everything about throwing a spear... optimum weight, balance, length, trajectory, construction material, etc. But that doesn't mean that he can throw it anywhere near as well as an African Bushman. The Bushman can't explain it, he just knows it.

Just my take on it. I don't like rabbit that much. A bit too bony for me.

 

[AITB]

Originally posted by The Galatian:

Are you now telling me that there have not been errors in Scripture?

I can't find that in my posts, no. Would you like to re-read them?

How do you know that there still aren't.

I didn't say there aren't...I didn't comment. I only asked you how you can trust something errant...

In spite of Helen's denial, rabbits do not chew cud. That has a very specific meaning. And then we get "well ______ used to mean something different in those days.", a dodge that covers any discrepancy at all.

Of course there are errors in Scripture. The KJV, and others were specifically compiled to reduce the number of errors.

The KJV was compiled to reduce errors in Scripture? Prove it. I don't believe you.

If you mean the translators had a goal of consistency, that they would have perhaps taken the view that some seemingly-obvious contradiction was a copyists error, say, and 'resolved' it in the translation, then I can believe that. Translators have always done that. But I don't believe for a moment that the KJV was compiled primarily to reduce errors in Scripture - if you have back up for that I'd love to see it.

I don't know of an error that attends directly to the message of the Bible, however. Do you?

You don't know of one but that might simply be because it's not evidence by contradictory things such as you are saying the two genealogies are. With them you don't know 'which is right', do you, if they are both claimed to be of Joseph? If you only had one of them it could be the wrong one. So maybe some other things are equally wrong and you just don't know it.

If it's important to you that the Bible be correct in the number of legs a grasshopper has, or whether or not rabbits are ruminants, then this is a major problem. Otherwise, you're with the vast majority of Christians, and don't have a problem.

You've linked not having a problem with something but I'm not sure what that something is.

I don't have a problem but I'm not sure it's because of what you linked it with since I didn't understand what you wrote.

Feel free to clarify if you want to.

AITB: So how can I believe that the Bible is true where it counts, if it sometimes has errors where it doesn't count?

How can we be sure the Bible is the word of God at all? Ultimately, we must have faith that it does. And I do.

Yes but why do you have faith in a book you 'know' has errors in? On something very important?

Would you be relying on a science book that says "the earth is flat", saying "Ah but I trust the rest of what it says"?

There's more. We have the tradition of Christians from the beginning.

...who thought the Bible has no errors in so why trust them...since they are 'wrong' about that...

And we have extensive scholarship to determine what they wrote and what they thought of it.

That's enough.

If you say so.

If you're not going to answer then kindly tell me so...

I think I just answered

You don't have to answer me again. You did answer my question. But if you want to, you are free to, of course...

AITB