Is Jesus of 'Cursed Lineage'

if that is the case, then jesus is neither the son of joseph nor the son of god, but the *ahem* bastard son of heli (assuming luke says that heli was mary's father, which it does not). this would be the same as lot's two children by his daughters, in genesis, who are btw eponymous ancestors of people the authors didn't seem to like.

except hebrew ethnicity. in cases of jewish father and a gentile mother, the child is not accepted as being of hebrew lineage. but if the mother is jewish and the father is a gentile, it is. so something obviously goes through the mother.but no, not titles.

haven't bothered to make my call on this, since i don't especially care. i think all genealogies are bunk. but i've heard a suggest that instead of reading:"And Jesus himself... being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli..." it should read:"And Jesus himself... being (as was supposed the son of Joseph), but was [the son] of Heli..."i'm not making some kind of off-the-wall claim like tom was, but i'm curious if anyone knows anything on this. and what would luke be claiming? it doesn't seem like heli is mary's father, that's extrabiblical (and to account for this very verse, i might add). is it saying that mary slept around? or is luke correcting a detail? or what?

well, you didn't reply to the though. but ah well. i don't bat for either team, i call 'em like i see 'em. as brain said, this book was written 400 years after the gospel, and (like any other talmud) is explaining thought and tradition on text. they are not what i would call accurate sources. i think i breifly addressed this point earlier, actually, with a reference to extra-biblical texts pointing the mary being the daughter of heli. sons in jewish genealogies are always genetic sons. although, curiously, the term "son" in reference to "son of god" (king david, like psalm 2), or son in terms of "member of a group" ("son of israel") CAN be adoptive. but in genealogies, they are genetic. besides, there's an actual hebrew word for son-in-law.however, the thought i talked about was a different option to the 1600-year-old "son in law" thought, and the it's that luke is correcting some kind of mistake. your thoughts?

matthew skips a few as well, but i suspect he does it for numerical reasons.

yes, and i think we've overturned it.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 01-04-2005 03:27 AM

see genesis 32. see genesis 6.

i believe some are arguing that other members of lineage are subject to a curse. this argument does not hold up.if jesus were to be a king of judah, sitting on the throne in jerusalem, he would have to be a son of solomon. the only reason to connect jesus to the house of david is to have him as heir, not just as being under david's metaphorical roof. matthew at least tries this, but luke doesn't seem to care. it's not bloodline, it's the line of KINGS that matters. luke, should it be through mary (which i doubt it is) seems unaware of this fact.

jesus's name was not immanuel. it was jesus. or joshua if you think he was hebrew. but not immanuel. immanuel was not the son of god, or the son of a virgin, he was the son of isaiah. and the hebrew simply does not say virgin. the sign was of a period of time, like a clock, to measure the reign of king ahaz -- he would be removed from power before the child reached his bar mitzvah. since ahaz died long before jesus was born, the verse cannot have anything to do with jesus. (context is important)i would address the other quotes, but preaching just annoys me. that and i don't believe in the book of john, that the letters of paul are anything more than one man's opinion, and that revelation is most likely a coded message to the christians in rome.

quote:

---

Tts 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

---

scarcely do i ever agree with paul, but the man has a point. does it really matter who jesus's daddy was?

my point, and paul's i think, is that it's really not important. it shouldn't matter. i've heard some of them actually make sentances that say things with the name meanings. but i'm too lazy to check.

you're ignoring the intention of the verse. paul is saying that these things are pointless and unimportant to the spirit of the religion. they're details, all of them, that people get caught up on and have nothing to do with the larger picture.he's saying that whether or not jesus was of david's house, in the line of kings, or whether he was for or against mosaic law, having compassion on your fellow man and loving your neighbor is still a good idea.here's the other verse that says this:

quote:

---

First Timothy 1:4-6

​

Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do]. Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and [of] a good conscience, and [of] faith unfeigned: From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;

---

This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 01-05-2005 21:45 AM

ahaz was the house of david. the phrase means "King" and he's talking to ahaz. please read the rest of the chapter instead of randomly quoting verses. here's the important part, broken up with nice bolds [a bracket additions by me so you know who's talking about whom] to make it extra clear.

quote:

---

Isaiah 7:

​

And the LORD spoke again unto Ahaz, saying: "Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God: ask it either in the depth, or in the height above."

​

But Ahaz said: "I will not ask, neither will I try the LORD."

​

And he [Isaiah] said: "Hear ye now, O house of David [Ahaz]: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Curd and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good. Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken. The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria."

---

ok do we get what's going on now? isaiah is delivering a prophesy to king ahaz, of the house of david. it says that a young woman (the hebrew DOES NOT say "virgin") will give birth, and before the child is old enough to know right from wrong (possibly a figurative way of saying bar mitzvah, but some kind of coming of age) that assyria will invade ephraim.the woman is either isaiah's wife or ahaz's, and obviously not a virgin. the word used just means young woman. there is a completely separate word in hebrew for virgin.who is the child? of no real consequence. he's a sign, not a messiah. it's a clock by which to gauge the event that is being prophesied, not the prophesy itself. the prophesy itself can be found from verse 15 to the end of the chapter. yet this is never quoted. indeed, one of the translations i have (JPS) indicates that the woman is already pregnant.

quote:

---

Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

---

not immanuel. joshua, or jesus.edit: bolds added, because i forgot them.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 01-06-2005 04:20 AM

if joseph was the first born of his father, who was the first born of his father, all the way back to david, sure. i think matthew has it that way, but i haven't cross-checked it.not too sure about the second part, but you can't prove that heli was mary's father and not joseph's.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 01-05-2005 22:12 AM

you've never read the bible have you? jacob wrestles with god in the desert. at least most christians claim it's god, the text isn't clear. it seems to both be god and not god -- maybe it was jesus? lol. anyhow. moses saw part of god as well, and abraham saw good also. sons of gods: ben'elohym. literally, it means members of the group "gods." literally. this is also read as "angels" by some since there is a connotation that they are lesser gods.also see job 1+2. satan is apparently a son of god. you know the hebrew word for man? adam. you know the hebrew word for mankind? ben'adam. sons of adam, or members of the group "man." you know the latin name for the morning star? lucifer.