From: ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:02:01 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research

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:
|> >In article <70498@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
|> |Pitts) wrote:
|> |
|> |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!

(BTW, a couple days ago I posted that I thought the fudge phrase ("so it was thought")
 in Luke did not occur in the earliest manusripts. I noted at the time that I could be thinking
of another passage. Well, I was. Upon double-checking I found that the false fudge was not
Luke's...it was Matthew's.

|> 
|> |> 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"

|> |> David -  Jesus was the son of each of those in Luke's geneology.  Both 
|> |> of them mention Joseph.
|> |
|> |I'm not interested in speculation, I want the word of the Bible,
|> |thanks.
|> 
|> See above.

Take a look yourself

|> 
|> |Cheers,
|> |Kent
|> 
|> For Christ and His Kingdom,
|> Richard Pitts
|> -- 
|> rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
|> Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
|>                         -|-  |  -|-
|>                          |   |   |
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:18287 alt.atheism:19024 talk.philosophy.misc:1940