From: ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:21:17 GMT

In article <70916@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct09.193148.29118@brtph560.bnr.ca> ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board) writes:
|> |In article <70672@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|> ||> In article <1992Oct09.150201.24369@brtph560.bnr.ca> ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board) writes:
|> ||> |In article <70617@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|> ||> ||> In article <ksand-081092174258@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> ||> ||> |Let me know where in the Bible it is stated that the ancestory line
|> ||> ||> |is ascended from Mary, if you could do that I will shut up. If you
|> ||> ||> |can't then you should shut up. A simple deal, or what.
|> ||> ||> 
|> ||> ||> Here is Matthew record.  Note that the men from Abraham to Joseph
|> ||> ||> were listed as the father of the next person, except for Joseph who
|> ||> ||> is listed as the husband of Mary not the father of Jesus.  Mary is
|> ||> ||> the one to whom Jesus was born.
|> ||> ||> 
|> ||> ||>    Mat 1:1   A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David,
|> ||> ||>      the son of Abraham:
|> ||> ||>    Mat 1:2   Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob,
|> ||> ||>      Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
|> ||> ||>    ...
|> ||> ||>    Mat 1:16   and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of 
|> ||> |                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
|> ||> ||>      whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
|> ||> ||> 
|> ||> ||> Luke's account says that Jesus was the son "so it was thought" of Joseph,
|> ||> ||> but it doesn't qualify the others (Mary's ancestors) with "so it was
|> ||> ||> thought", for he was their son through Mary.
|> ||> ||> 
|> ||> ||>    Luke 3:23   Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his
|> ||> ||>     ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,
|> ||> |                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> ||> |How clear do you want it? Both geanealogies trace through Joseph. The "so 
|> ||> |it was thought" and "the husband of" apply to whether Jesus was descended 
|> ||> |from Joseph, but the rest of both genealogies CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCABLY are
|> ||> |refer to Joseph's ancestors.
|> ||> |
|> ||> |Are you BLIND - YOU typed this in!
|> ||> 
|> ||> 
|> ||> Here it is from Matthew.  From Adam to Joseph, each person is said to be
|> ||> the father of the next.  Joseph is not said to be the father of Jesus, 
|> ||> but is said to be the husband of Mary.  Mary is the one to whom Jesus was
|> ||> born and Joseph was not his father.
|> ||> 
|> ||>    Mat 1:1   A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the
|> ||>       son of Abraham:
|> ||>    Mat 1:2   Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob
|> ||>       the father of Judah and his brothers,
|> ||>    ...
|> ||>    Mat 1:16   and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was  
|> ||>       born Jesus, who is called Christ.
|> ||> 
|> ||> 
|> ||> Here it is from Luke.  The qualifier "so it was thought" is applied to Joseph,
|> ||> for he was not Jesus' father nor was Jesus Joseph's son.  Jesus was the son
|> ||> of the rest of these men as they are Mary's ancestors and the qualifier is 
|> ||> not given to them.
|> ||> 
|> 
|> |The Luke geaneaology is list of items of the form "x,the son of y". In 
|> |each item of the list (I would provide examples but I don't have my Bible 
|> |with me) this form expresses the relationship "y is the father of x". Note 
|> |that the entry expressing the relationship between Joseph and Heli is NOT 
|> |modified ("Joseph, the son of Heli"). So the whole list is a genealogy of 
|> |JOSEPH. The qualifier is in the entry expressing the relationship between 
|> |Joseph and Jesus ( "son,so it was thought, of Joseph"). Again, the qualifier 
|> |clearly applies to the relationship between Jesus & Jos., NOT the 
|> |relationship between Joseph & Heli, so this is CLEARLY Joseph's geneology. 
|> 
|> Understood, but the passage is telling who's son Jesus is.  Jesus is
|> the Son of each of the people mentioned - ultimately He is the Son of God.
|> 
|> Matthew specifically said that so and so was the father of so and so - 
|> he went from the top down.  Luke goes from the bottom up - there does
|> not have to be any connection between Joseph and Heli, but between Jesus
|> and Heli.

Ah, NOW I understand what you're getting at, I was beginning to think you were
really blind. I still think you're rationalizing, though. In order to get my
interpretation all you have to do is read it as plainly written. In order
to get your interpretation the "word of God" is not enough...you must:
    1) add an implied reference to Mary that simply is not there
and 2) redefine the word son. 

I think it's interesting that you reject a straightforward reading of the Bible
that makes perfect sense in favor of a contrived version that requires additional
(dubious) assumptions, simply because you don't want to believe it. In order to
deny biblical errors you seem to be claiming that almighty God was incapable of
writing a simple geneology clearly.
 
|> 
|> |I don't see how it is possible to read this any other way (I'm not being 
|> |flippant, it's an honest statement.
|>  
|> Understood.  I'm not saying it is not a point of misunderstanding.
|> 
|> ||>   Luke 3:23   Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his
|> ||>     ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,
|> ||> ||> 
|> ||> ||> |> They had them figured out.  Joseph was not the father.  Mary was the
|> ||> ||> |> mother.  The legal line came through Joseph, as Matthew presents it.
|> ||> ||> |> Matthew does not say Joseph was Jesus' father.  Luke gives the
|> ||> |                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> ||> ||> |> male ancestorial line and so the blood line of Jesus through Mary to 
|> ||> |      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> ||> |
|> ||> |Hell, Pitts - the Luke verse doesn't even MENTION Mary! You're saying
|> ||> |      "A father of B" != "B, the son of A"
|> ||> 
|> ||> Oh.
|> ||> 
|> ||> It said that Jesus was the son of Heli, but he only thought to be the
|> |                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ *no it said Joseph was son of Heli*  
|> ||> son of Joseph, could it not be that he was only the son of Mary.
|> ||> 
|> ||> Oh, maybe here is the reason you say Mary wasn't even MENTIONED - you
|> ||> didn't read from the beginning of the book of Luke.  For Mary was told
|> ||> that she was to have a child even though she was a virgin, for nothing
|> ||> is impossible with God.
|> |
|> |Of course, I've read it. I didn't say that Luke doesn't mention Mary, I said 
|> |the Luke verse (3:23),and- by implication -the geneology didn't mention Mary.
|> |We're talking about whether the geneology is of Joseph or Mary. The genealogy 
|> |is a self-contained unit beginning at Luke 3:23, and Mary is NEVER mentioned. 
|> |This is why I was shocked that you had it Luke=Mary, Matthew=Joseph, rather 
|> |than vice versa.
|>  
|> The genealogy is part of Luke's book - it can and should be taken in
|> context with the rest of the book.

Well, maybe (there seems to be a substantial body of scholoarly opinion that
Luke 1-2 was NOT written by the same person as the rest). But I hardly think 
the idea that Luke would give so much space over to a geneology but leave out
a generation (Mary), while including a supposedly unrelated person of the same
generation (joseph) is credible enough to warrant your fishing expedition.
|> 
|> Sincerely,
|> Richard Pitts
|> 
|> -- 
|> rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
|> Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
|>                         -|-  |  -|-
|>                          |   |   |