From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:08:04 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

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.

|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.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |