Immaculate Conception and Descendance

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by precept

If you accept as Sarah did; that she being post menopausal could not have a child for Abraham; then you must accept that since you claim to have descended from the loins of Sarah and Abraham, that God made a dead womb come alive to bear Issac, Abraham's only son by his wife Sarah

If God is so capable of making you from Abraham; shouldn't He be just as capable of making Jesus from David?

And does it matter if He doesn't need any help, as in when He created Adam and Eve; Or that He uses human help; as in using Abraham's sperm to make Sarah conceive; Or that He doesn't use any human help but just for Mary to carry His Son to term?

David was from the tribe of Judah.
Joseph, Jesus' eathly adoptive father was also from the tribe of Judah.

Jacob was the father of Judah; Judah was the father of David; David was the father of Joseph; Joseph was the father of Jesus. OR

Jesus was the son of Joseph;the son of David; the son of Judah.

That Mary was or was not from the tribe of Judah is unimportant re the genealogy of Jesus. That Jesus Messiah had to born from the tribe of Judah is most important in identifying the TRUE MESSIAH!


precept

Just to clarify a small matter: Her genealogy is given in Luke 3. She was of the tribe of Judah and the lineage of David (Ps. 132:11; Luke 1:32). She was connected by marriage with Elisabeth, who was of the lineage of Aaron (Luke 1:36).


v/r

Q

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Just to clarify a small matter: Her genealogy is given in Luke 3.

Mary's geneology? I don't see a geneology for Mary in Luke 3.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Mary's geneology? I don't see a geneology for Mary in Luke 3.

Ignored the rest of the passages too?

v/r

Q

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Ignored the rest of the passages too?

v/r

Q

I don't think I'm ignoring anything. "Mary" doesn't appear anywhere in the whole chapter:

Originally Posted by NIV

<H5>John the Baptist Prepares the Way

Originally Posted by NIV

1In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar–when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene– 2during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert. 3He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 4As is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: “A voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him. 5Every valley shall be filled in,
every mountain and hill made low. The crooked roads shall become straight,
the rough ways smooth. 6And all mankind will see God's salvation.’ ”[a]


7John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 9The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire."

10“What should we do then?” the crowd asked.

11John answered, “The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.”

12Tax collectors also came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”

13“Don't collect any more than you are required to,” he told

them. 14Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?”

He replied, “Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely–be content with your pay.”

15The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Christ.[b] 16John answered them all, “I baptize you with[c] water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 17His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” 18And with many other words John exhorted the people and preached the good news to them.

19But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of Herodias, his brother's wife, and all the other evil things he had done, 20Herod added this to them all: He locked John up in prison. The Baptism and Genealogy of Jesus

21When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
23Now 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, 24the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon,
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e]
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.

Moreover, there is a geneology, but it starts with: "He[Jesus] was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki . . . "

One would think that a geneology of "Mary" would at some point mention her name, and maybe designate her as the daughter of somebody.

[Bandit]

Mary does not have to appear in the chapter. The lineage is automatically given to the (supposed father).

maybe you should just tell everyone what your agenda is on the Christian forum by starting with what YOU wish to prove about the Messiah & the virgin birth & the lineage of Jesus & so on & so on. if you are expecting the bible hop from believers, with someone who has already presented two very strong cases of antiChrist, you are not going to get real far in discussion, especially not with me.

since your beliefs are different, it does not matter what or how many scriptures or sources are presented showing who Mary is, you already appear to have have a different belief.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Say what!?

I'm asking about a particular scriptural passage - Luke 3 - and the fact that, on its face, it does not appear to be a geneology of Mary. If you think that it is a geneology of Mary, then demonstrate it. That's a dialogue.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Bandit

with someone who has already presented two very strong cases of antiChrist,

What does this even mean?

If your goal is to goad me into a nasty bout of mean-spirited name calling, there is zero possibility of me biting. So save yourself the trouble.

[Bandit]

very good. the beliefs have been stated.
so to you it appears that on its face, it is not her geneology. to me it appears that yes it is.

it is not my goal to be a name caller, but you are correct here about this, I will save myself the trouble.. I am not biting yours either.

carry on my brother & have a nice weekend.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

I don't think I'm ignoring anything. "Mary" doesn't appear anywhere in the whole chapter:


[b]Moreover, there is a geneology, but it starts with: "He[Jesus] was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki . . . "

One would think that a geneology of "Mary" would at some point mention her name, and maybe designate her as the daughter of somebody.

Luke 3 is referring to Mary, not Joseph according to some Bibles. There is a conundrum here, as some believe Joseph and Mary come from Heli...(note the female pronoun prior to the beginning of the lineage). That would be due to Levitian tradition. (sp).

Hey, not cut in stone, just a thought.

v/r

Q

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Luke 3 is referring to Mary, not Joseph according to some Bibles. There is a conundrum here, as some believe Joseph and Mary come from Heli...(note the female pronoun prior to the beginning of the lineage). That would be due to Levitian tradition. (sp).

Hey, not cut in stone, just a thought.

v/r

Q

Interesting. I'm going to research this now. It surprised me when you mentioned a geneology of Mary because I've never read it that way. Equally surprising is that none of the English translators have it that way. If that's true, shouldn't it be translated as: "He[Jesus] was the son of Mary, the daughter of Heli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki . . ."?

I just don't see how to reconcile this notion that this is Mary's geneology with the plain language of every English translation. But I'm going to research the Greek and see what appears, and get back to this issue.

[I, Brian]

So far as I understand it, there are two genaeologies given for Jesus in the NT, both demonstrating descent from King David - which I believe is a requisite for fulfillment of Messianic prophecy.

The trouble is, mainstream Trinitarian Christianity has God as the Father anyway - so the lineage fails to be an actual blood lineage of Jesus in a general sense of a man of the flesh and blood of David, as begotten in the flesh of the proceeding generations. So the idea that Jesus is physically descended from God, but also physically descended from David presents something of a paradox.

This is further confounded, I believe, by the fact that the two genaeologies given in the New Testament for Jesus do not agree.

Therefore it's something of an apologetic exercise in claiming that one genaeology represents Mary - when both apparently claim otherwise - as it is one of the simplest potential solutions in addressing the paradox.

2c - but feel to disagree.

Btw - as a general point, please let us not misconstrue other member motivations over their name.

[Abogado del Diablo]

The language of Luke 3 definitely reads as Joseph's genealogy, both in the Greek and in every English translation.

There is a widespread belief that there was a Jewish custom of substituting a woman's husband's name for hers when creating a genealogy for a woman. Thus, goes the argument, the reference to "Joseph" actually should be read as a reference to "Mary." I have several problems with this explanation:

(1) It wouldn't be a useful genealogy because nobody would know whose genealogy it even is. What would be the point of making a geneaology of woman if you are not allowed to mention the woman whose geneaology it is?

(2) Why is the author of Luke familiar with this supposedly Jewish tradition while the author of Matthew is not? Indeed, tradition holds, and their respective texts tend to support, that Luke was writing for a more gentile audience while Matthew's gospel was written for more "Jewish" Christians.

(3) Luke 1:36 says that Mary is Elizabeth's relative and Elizabeth, according to Luke 1:5 is descended from Aaron, which would make her a descendent of the tribe of Levi rather than the tribe of Judah (which is David's tribe). Not definitive certainly, but curious.

(4) Another curiousity: In verse 1:27, the author of Luke specifically points out that Joseph is a descendent of David but says nothing about Mary.

(5) Nobody seems to cite a non-apologetic source for this notion that Jewish genealogies of the time would not list women's names, even if only to identify the genealogy as that of a woman.

It's getting curiouser and curiouser . . .

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

The language of Luke 3 definitely reads as Joseph's genealogy, both in the Greek and in every English translation.

There is a widespread belief that there was a Jewish custom of substituting a woman's husband's name for hers when creating a genealogy for a woman. Thus, goes the argument, the reference to "Joseph" actually should be read as a reference to "Mary." I have several problems with this explanation:

(1) It wouldn't be a useful genealogy because nobody would know whose genealogy it even is. What would be the point of making a geneaology of woman if you are not allowed to mention the woman whose geneaology it is?

(2) Why is the author of Luke familiar with this supposedly Jewish tradition while the author of Matthew is not? Indeed, tradition holds, and their respective texts tend to support, that Luke was writing for a more gentile audience while Matthew's gospel was written for more "Jewish" Christians.

(3) Luke 1:36 says that Mary is Elizabeth's relative and Elizabeth, according to Luke 1:5 is descended from Aaron, which would make her a descendent of the tribe of Levi rather than the tribe of Judah (which is David's tribe). Not definitive certainly, but curious.

(4) Another curiousity: In verse 1:27, the author of Luke specifically points out that Joseph is a descendent of David but says nothing about Mary.

(5) Nobody seems to cite a non-apologetic source for this notion that Jewish genealogies of the time would not list women's names, even if only to identify the genealogy as that of a woman.

It's getting curiouser and curiouser . . .

your opinion...

v/r

Q

[Bandit]

it really is opinion. there are enough sources & studies for me to have the confidence, but again, that will depend on what someone is trying to prove.

I dont feel it is something i need to prove, but I know that some feel they need to or disprove it.
Here are some places that did a nice job but i doubt it will be enough for someone who does not believe the bible.
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/birth2.html

http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/geneal.htm

http://www.matsati.com/genealogy.html

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

your opinion...

v/r

Q

True. Just differences of opinion. That's what we are discussing, right?