From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Historical/traditional answer to geneology of Christ
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:23:36 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications, Plano Tx.

In article <1992Oct13.152425.28154@news.cs.brandeis.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>One theory I've heard is that Matthew was tracing Jesus' claim to be the king
>of the Jews, i.e., tracing the royal lineage of Israel from David to Jesus which
>accounts for Matthew tracing the lineage through Solomon, whereas Luke was
>tracing Jesus' true human ancestry.  This makes sense given the purpose of 
>Matthew's gospel and Luke's gospel.
>
>  -- Scott @Brandeis
>
>                           I asked Jesus,
>                     "How much do you love me?"
>                     "This much," He answered;
>                        and He stretched out
>                         His arms and died.

This idea is valid if there were two Josephs.  Objections to the "Mary
genealogy have been made from several quarters.  The adoption idea as
recorded by Eusebius is another possibility that would yield two Josephs.
But the interesting point about your observation is that it points to the
different natures of the Matthew and Luke gospels and the different aspects
of Christ's human nature that they reveal. This observation is in harmony with
the existence of two different children and two different sets of parents.

According to Steiner, Each child embodied a different aspect of the physical
and soul-spiritual nature of humanity. These natures were united during
the events described in Luke of the 12 year old Jesus. The next recorded 
appearance of Jesus is at the age of 30, recorded in all four gospels.
In Jesus of Nazereth was united the two natures described in Luke (descended 
from Nathan, the son of David, the so-called priestly line), and Matthew
(from Solomon, the son of David - kingly line).  It is interesting that
Luke (a) does not write about the genealogy in the nativity account, and it
goes backwards to "Adam, the son of God", i.e. the archetypal man,
where Matthew begins his whole gospel with the genealogy starting with
Abraham.

The differences between the two accounts accents the different natures:

Luke - simple, innocent shepherds, pure in heart. Common people, oppressed by
the powers of the world (have to travel to Bethlehem on Caesar`s order). Rustic
mood. Manger. Nature. The angels appear to  the shepherds, not in a dream but 
in waking consciousness.  Gabriel appears to Maryin the same way.  No indication
of anything like a dream experience. The birth of John the Baptist. Emphasis on
Mary. The annunciation. The essential Christmas story one tells to children. 
Most Christmas carols are derived from Luke.

Matthew - royalty (including Herod). Wisdom, experience of the ages (Magi), 
emphasis on the genealogy as part of the nativity story, wise men from afar,
encounter with evil.  The wise men see a star (ancient wisdom of the heavens),
riches of the world (the gifts). Revelation is to Joseph, not Mary.  Joseph
and the Wise men appear in a dream state of consciousness.  Journey
to Egypt, font of ancient wisdom and civilization.  The immanence of death.

           The birth of Jesus and the birth of Christ:

These two natures, as indicated by Rudolf Steiner, were united in Jesus
of Nazareth, embodying as it were, the whole spectrum of human nature. With
the actual descent of the Christ into this body-soul nature of Jesus,
one can speak of the Christ Jesus from the moment of the baptism in Jordan
onwards, of the true Incarnation of Christ, the Son of God, fully as Man. The
significance of the baptism in Jordan can also be seen in that Mark and
John do not deal with the nativity and childhood at all but begin with 
the start of the "three years", i.e. the incarnation of Jesus Christ, and
culminate as the others do, with the passion, death, and resurrection.

The above details first indicated by Rudolf Steiner, are not specifically
detailed in the Bible, but they are in harmony with it, I believe. Also,
the significance of the Epiphany and not the Christmas story as the moment
of the true birth of Christ can be seen in the practices and liturgy of
the Eastern church, which still retains a strong sense of this.

In this perspective one can also get a sense for the importance to Matthew
and Luke respectively for giving the genealogies, and for devoting so much
space to their stories of the nativity.  It required two gospels to describe
the two-sided nature of Jesus.  The story of the Christ Jesus, during the three
years, required four gospels, those of Mark and John being  written again
from two different points of view.  The two genealogies demonstrate Jesus
earthly legitimacy as the heir of King David, but their "purpose" is also
much much greater in scope as well.

	Gerry Palo