Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
genealogy, Mary the rightful king?
#16
Dave,

I'm not concerned about convincing people of anything. This website, the entire scope of everything going on here, including the translation, is very much a work-in-progress.

I thought I was doing the right thing by being careful to state that the meaning of the word in question is in doubt......until I can find additional evidence.

The Interlinear is nowhere near completion - I'm not going out to publish it tomorrow. Relax.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#17
ok
Reply
#18
Dave Wrote:Oh craig,.......

drmlanc wrote:
Okay, so perhaps Mary and Joseph shared lineages through Zerubabel. But, who was the rightful king? Joseph, or "Mary"?


Yosip. If he was not, then why bother to record a genealogy for him at all?
Shlama, Craig

I don't see your point? My position the whole time has been that Mattai is the genealogy of Maryam (for genetic descent only), and that it was through Yosip that Y'shu inherited his claim to the throne in Luqa. I don't see any problems with my statement you quoted and the newer one in this thread below:

"Yes. But for various subtle and logical reasons we have to assume it came through Yosip. There are big problems with kingship passing through a female, because if Maryam had any younger brothers then they would inherit not Y'shu through her, or if her father had died before Y'shu was born or even old enough to reign then any surviving uncles or male cousins would be an issue. "

As I said in the above there are "various subtle and logical reasons we have to assume it came through Yosip." And, one of the biggest reasons is because it makes a genealogy for Yosip (much less two) seem rather pointless. And, if we ignore that and press on with a "Maryam as rightful king" theory then there is still the problem that we don't know if she had any brothers or any uncles or any male cousins who could inherit before her.

Shlama, Craig
Reply
#19
Craig, the quote from you pointed in your statement that joseph would have to be the kingly title,...clear cut,.....that is what is understood in the words, clearly. That is what I pointed out. I did not see anyplace where you actually stated that you held to the Mary lineage before this, until now.

But I do like your position that you have about it atm. That is the most reasonable position in words yet I've seen here. Your investigating rather than making snap decisions and statements.

I see that you will thoroughly look at all corners to evaluate it first rather than make bold statements to a fact that is not scripture. That is what I point out in my many words here. There is no way I or anyone of sound judgement will take the word of some church father or talmud writing, (especially after having that thrown back at me). You use scripture to make sound decisions and let GOD's word prove itself.

On a side note. There is a problem I see at the moment with this particular chapter. With this chapter having a mistake of only 13 decendants after the captivity, I can see how many would rush to this possibility, in an effort to explain and be able to uphold this as original. Such is not the case. And I do note that this puts this particular chapter in line with the Greek, Latin, etc, and places the Peshitta in a "non-original" status for me, atm. The mistake is there for all to see, unless it can be corrected. Again, I did not find this sort of alternative reading/meaning in Greek translations, and i did look at quite a few. I wanted to know for myself so I looked at what I could find,...nothing.

Am I happy about that? Not really, but not surprised either. In what I see, the gospels seem tricky in all languages, not just aramaic. The O S has numerous mistakes, even in the very sentences I say that pinpoint the particular Joseph, etc. Am I happy that I don't see the clearcut truth in this particular chapter over this?? not at all, in fact upset, there should be no confusion for any of us.
Reply
#20
Dave Wrote:You use scripture to make sound decisions and let GOD's word prove itself.

Good advice, Akhi - now follow it yourself!

If the scripture says "Yosef is the son of Heli", then who gives a rat's (*expletive*) about what church fathers say about the issue?

If you choose to follow your own wise advice above, and you are of sound mind - then you can come to no other conclusion but that Luqa is recording the lineage of Yosef, the husband of Maryam. He says it is, in clear and straightforward language....any language.

That must mean Mattai's lineage is that of Maryam. And the solving of the 14 generations problem with that wonderful word, Gawra.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#21
hmmm. That would be nice if it explained things, but one problem, Luke doesn't say "Heli fathered Joseph. It says the " the son of,...."

This would be a genealogy according to the law. Now that would make Matthews according to nature, since it says, " Jacob fathered Joseph,..."

The wording between the 2 seems intentional in this case.

Talk about an indepth area of study!
Reply
#22
my GOD this is deep!

Here's the funny part, it also seems that the Jeconiah problem is presented on purpose here, to show that Joseph could not claim Jesus as his legit son by nature, since he had this bloodline in him, but the throne could be legit through Mary. Nowhere in the word does it mention of a lifting of this curse from Jeconiah's bloodline. GOD says: "As I live,..."

"The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David." This is divine decree here, given to Mary,....hmmmm. The throne of David was legit through Mary, divine promise. The requirement for the throne of Israel was prophetic sanction or divine appointment. Anyone who attempted to rule on Samaria's throne without prophetic sanction was assassinated (1 Kings 11:26-39; 15:28-30; 16:1-4, 11-15; 21:21-29; 11 Kings 9:6-10; 10:29-31; 14 8-12).


Many things going on here in this, very tricky in parts. Matthews genealogy, although a kingly lineage, shows why Jesus could not be King through him because of Joseph, on purpose it seems, and the problem was only solved through Mary.

Now Mary, since she had no brothers that are listed, was an heiress; therefore her husband, according to Jewish law, was reckoned among her father's family, as his son. So Joseph was that actual son of Jacob, and the legal son of Heli.

From here I'm seeing why GOD was adamant about Joseph accepting Mary as his wife, and how Matthew's Gospel attests to the virgin birth because of Joseph.


From here i have to claim a wrong on my part. I claimed the title came through Joseph. At this point, I'll have to wait for some guidance from The LORD on it, and claim i was wrong by default.
Reply
#23
A lot of what you say is good Craig, especially that a genealogy of Yosip would be rather pointless if he were not the rightful king.

"""The curse that was placed upon Yokhanea in Yirmeyahu 22:24-30 was lifted because of his later repentance as recorded in Sanhedrin 37a and implicitly shown in I Diwrei HaYamim 3:17-18 and Melakhim 25:27-28." ""

But this pains me. It pains me that the OT says none of his children will be a King, while the solution is found, of all places, in the Talmud <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->
Reply
#24
drmlanc Wrote:But this pains me. It pains me that the OT says none of his children will be a King, while the solution is found, of all places, in the Talmud <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->

The Tanakh says the same thing about his father, but obviously it was reversed at some point because Jeconiah did in fact become king.

Yirmeyahu (Jeremiah) 36:30

"Therefore thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David."

II Melakhim (Kings) 24:6

"So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers; and Jeconiah his son reigned in his stead."

Likewise we are forced to assume that the curse against Jeconiah was lifted, or else, virgin birth or not, since both lines run through the son and grandson of Jeconiah, Y'shu could not be king because he is both the physical descendant of Jeconiah on Maryam's side and the legal descendant on Yosip's.

Shlama, Craig
Reply
#25
"So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers; and Jeconiah his son reigned in his stead."

Ahhh, there it is!!! forced to believe is correct.

Joseph held the Kingly title rightfully, Mary was an heiress, Jesus has legitimate claim.

Your right Craig, both run through, I didn't find that.

So, the listing in Matthew can be Joseph, Jesus's father. Ok, let's make sure, on to the next one:

"Now Mary, since she had no brothers that are listed, was an heiress; therefore her husband, according to Jewish law, was reckoned among her father's family, as his son. So Joseph was that actual son of Jacob, and the legal son of Heli."
Reply
#26
Where did you get that a son-in-law is considered the son of his father-in-law in Jewish tradition?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#27
let me find it again.
Reply
#28
"At first glance, Matthew and Luke appear to be in disagreement as to who Joseph's father was. Matthew states he was the son of Jacob, while Luke states he was the son of Heli. Fortunately, an unlikely source has aided scholars in unraveling this mystery.
The Jerusalem Talmud indicates that Mary was the daughter of Heli (Haggigah, Book 77, 4). Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. Luke could rightfully call Joseph the "son of Heli" because this was in compliance with use of the word "son" at that time. Moreover, designating a son-in-law as a son had scriptural precedent.
Reply
#29
elaboration:

Son could also be used to describe kinship without sonship. Although Zerubbabel was the nephew of Shealtiel (1st Chronicles 3:17-19), he was called the "son of Shealtiel" (Ezra 3:2, Nehemiah 12:1, Haggai 1:12).
Jair is another example of this principle. He was a distant son-in-law of Manasseh (1st Chronicles 2:21-23 and 7:14-15); yet, he was called the "son of Manasseh" (Numbers 32:41, Deuteronomy 3:14, 1st Kings 4:13).
The point to remember is that the word son can be applied to several types of relationships.
Reply
#30
Dave Wrote:The Jerusalem Talmud indicates that Mary was the daughter of Heli (Haggigah, Book 77, 4).

The Talmud also says she raped by a Joseph Pandera among other unsavory things. I think it is more likely they simply took the common Greek tradition that Luqa was the genealogy of Y'shu and incorporated it, just as they did with the Gospels narratives in the Toledot Y'shu.

Shlama, Craig
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)