Yeah, I'm not replying to you athrok. I even think you might be a Poe now.

(February 9, 2016 at 9:54 am)athrock Wrote:

(February 9, 2016 at 8:42 am)robvalue Wrote: Did anyone cover how Jesus was meant to be a descendant of David?

That got screwed up since Joseph wasn't the father, so I remember someone saying that in fact Mary was a descendant of David. It's just that they "didn't tend to include women" in the genealogy.

Generally speaking, they did not. However, there are four women mentioned in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus. However, Jesus a descendant of David on BOTH sides of his family.

Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph with all of the legal rights and privileges thereunto appertaining including being a legal heir to the Davidic throne.

Jesus was the biological son of Mary, herself a descendant of David, and therefore, a descendant of David. 

Because of the Levirate requirement for brothers to marry their deceased brothers' widows, Joseph's mother and grandmother both had two husbands. Matthan's son (Jacob) was Joseph's biological father, and Matthat's son (Heli) was Joseph's legal father. Matthew's account traces Jesus' primary (biological) lineage, and Luke's record would follow Jesus' legal lineage.

Here's a helpful diagram:

I love how 'God' gets slipped into the genealogy like some fictional scandalous mailman.

You're right, athrock. That makes things much clearer -- just not in the way you think it does. 

We also need a line from Jesus back round to God, since Jesus is god's father as well.

And he's his own father, so we need a loop for that.

Quote:I love how 'God' gets slipped into the genealogy like some fictional scandalous mailman.

As an old college prof of mine once said:  It wasn't the finger of god that touched her.

(February 10, 2016 at 1:29 pm)robvalue Wrote: We also need a line from Jesus back round to God, since Jesus is god's father as well.

And he's his own father, so we need a loop for that.

And how does Holy Spirit relate to this whole cluster-f*ck? Is he - like - Jesus's cool, wacky uncle, who gave him beer and weed, and showed him how to play "Free Bird" on the guitar, but also probably molested him at some point?

Lol spot on

And what's the big deal with cussing out the hairy spirit? Holy, sorry. Is it the touchy side of God?

(February 9, 2016 at 2:21 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Actually the whole census narrative was shoehorned in pos hoc to get Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem for the birth (to fulfill prophesy).

Did you ever read that "prophecy," Constable? 

Micah 5 and it is about someone who would defeat the Assyrians in the late 8th century BC.  Has nothing to do with fucking "jesus."

Quote: Micah 5King James Version (KJV)
5 Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.
2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
3 Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.
4 And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.
5 And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.
6 And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.

BTW,  didn't work.  The Assyrians kicked the living shit out of the israelites.  Relegated them to the dustbin of history.  So much for fucking "prophecy."

You know that, I know that (sorry for not making it clear), but did the anonymous bible writers and their later "correctors" know that? Don't be silly of course they didn't, they just used something they thought could apply to their low rent Superman, and shoehorned it in like goodo.

More to the point, did they care?

"It says Bethlehem....there's JESUS!" 


Sad to say that is all the shitheads care about.

(February 10, 2016 at 1:21 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

(February 9, 2016 at 9:54 am)athrock Wrote: Generally speaking, they did not. However, there are four women mentioned in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus. However, Jesus a descendant of David on BOTH sides of his family.

Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph with all of the legal rights and privileges thereunto appertaining including being a legal heir to the Davidic throne.

Jesus was the biological son of Mary, herself a descendant of David, and therefore, a descendant of David. 

Because of the Levirate requirement for brothers to marry their deceased brothers' widows, Joseph's mother and grandmother both had two husbands. Matthan's son (Jacob) was Joseph's biological father, and Matthat's son (Heli) was Joseph's legal father. Matthew's account traces Jesus' primary (biological) lineage, and Luke's record would follow Jesus' legal lineage.

Here's a helpful diagram:

I love how 'God' gets slipped into the genealogy like some fictional scandalous mailman.

You're right, athrock. That makes things much clearer -- just not in the way you think it does. 

One of Jesus' ancestors was a hooker.  Maybe that's why he hung around them so much.

Paul got exasperated trying to reconcile the genealogies so he told his herd that it was worthless to argue about them.

1 Timothy 1:4 (CEB) = "They shouldn’t pay attention to myths and endless genealogies. Their teaching only causes useless guessing games instead of faithfulness to God’s way of doing things."

Titus 3:9 (CEB) = "Avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, and fights about the Law, because they are useless and worthless."

Ah OK. It's a Christ off then! Paul calling out those divinely inspired authors who felt the genealogies were important enough to record for all time.

My money's on Paul, he seems quite capable of evolving (making shit up) to meet the challenges.