From: ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:31:48 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research

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:
|> ||> >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,
|> |                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> 
|> Could you make your lines shorter, please.

Sorry, I'll try...I'm in a class this week and reading my news remotely.
This editor is not my usual.

|> 
|> |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. 

I don't see how it is possible to read this any other way (I'm not being flippant, it's an
honest statement.
 
|>    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,
|> 
|> |(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.
|> 
|> Where??????????

I'll bring the reference in, once I found it last night and noticed it was Matt. 1:16
rather than Luke I stopped reading. 

|> 
|> ||> 
|> ||> |> 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.
 
|> 
|>    Luke 1:26   In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a
|>       town in Galilee,
|>    Luke 1:27   to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a
|>       descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary.
|>    Luke 1:28   The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly
|>       favored! The Lord is with you."
|>    Luke 1:29   Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind
|>       of greeting this might be.
|>    Luke 1:30   But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have
|>       found favor with God.
|>    Luke 1:31   You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to
|>       give him the name Jesus.
|>    Luke 1:32   He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High.
|>       The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,
|>    Luke 1:33   and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom
|>       will never end."
|>    Luke 1:34   "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a
|>       virgin?"
|>    Luke 1:35   The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and 
|>       the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be
|>       born will be called the Son of God.
|>    Luke 1:36   Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her
|>       old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month.
|>    Luke 1:37   For nothing is impossible with God."
|>    Luke 1:38   "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as
|>       you have said." Then the angel left her.
|> 
|> ||> |> 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
|> 
|> Take a better look.

You're piling speculation (rationalization) on top of the word of the Bible, rather
than looking at it as is.

|> 
|> For Christ and His Kingdom,
|> Richard Pitts
|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
|> Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
|>                         -|-  |  -|-
|>                          |   |   |