Posted on 04/01/2002 7:31:34 AM PST by ElisabethInCincy
I love this site.I am a christian and huge follower and researcher of Israel and the events going on there..I wanted to know why so many of you on this board are Pro Israel...Its a great thing to coem to this site and see so much support for Israel...
This site is best online to find great fastttttt breaking news..I am news junkie :))))
A tribe contains many bloodlines. Which of the tribes contains the lineage of David? Judah? So that's why Jesus was where he was. Since Joseph was of Tribe Judah, Mary must have been, too. Did the custom of assigning tribes come from God or Israelite leaders? If it was from Israelite leaders, not to worry, God would see the females as members of tribes also. After all, one was to bear His Son. 
Thanks. That puts the discussion in sharp focus.
The Lineage Loophole
by Phil Luna
In Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 we are presented with two genealogies of Jesus Christ. On the surface these different listings would appear to be a contradiction in the scriptures. The genealogy found in Matthew's gospel is the lineage of Jesus' earthly father Joseph, while the genealogy found in Luke's gospel is the lineage of Jesus' mother Mary (see #Y100 - Dueling Genealogies a complete discussion of the two genealogies). However, many of the people that teach on the genealogies fail to realize or address a major problem associated with the genealogical listing found in Luke's gospel, the lineage of Mary. Once you have established that the line is indeed Mary's you must deal with a second difficulty. The rights of the line are not passed through the mother, only the father. Even though Mary, through her lineage, was of the Davidic bloodline, she should be excluded from being able to pass those rights of the bloodline because of being a female (Deut 21:16). So it is not enough to prove that Mary was an unblemished descendant of David, she had to be a male to transfer the rights. Therefore she would be disqualified to transfer the rights to her son Jesus, except for a little known exception to the rule.
In Numbers 26 we are introduced to Zelophehad. Zelophehad, we are told, had no sons, only daughters. In Numbers 27, following the death of Zelophehad, the daughters of Zelophehad came before Moses and argued their plight. Because their father had died with no sons, all of their rights of inheritance were to be lost and they felt this was unfair. So Moses prayed to God and God gave Moses an exception to the rule. The Lord told Moses that the inheritance CAN flow through a female, IF they fulfill two requirements. There must be no male offspring in the family (Num 27:8) and if the female offspring should marry, they must marry within their own tribe (Num 36:6).
Now we come back to Mary. On the surface she should be unable to transfer the rights to her Son. But when you research you find that Mary had NO brothers, AND Mary did indeed marry within her own tribe to Joseph.
Did Mary have any brothers?
By Guy Cramer
After reading the detailed information above, I asked Phil if he knew of any information on Mary's brothers. He cited numerous non-canonical works such as The Catholic Encyclopedia, the apocryphal book called, the Protoevangelium of James... tradition states that Mary had no brothers.
Curious, I went through the four gospels looking for any reference to collaborate Phil's references.
In John 19:25-27 we read:
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His Mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
When Jesus therefore saw His Mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing by, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!"
Then He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his home.
We see from this passage that Mary had a sister.
Jesus is not saying to His mother "Look at me on the cross" with the statement "Woman, behold your son!" Jesus is telling his mother that John (the only disciple at the cross) is going to care for her. Jesus also tells John that he must care for Mary.
We must acknowledge that Joseph (Jesus Father) has probably died since we see no references to Joseph after Jesus was 12 years old in Luke 2:41-52.
To understand why Jesus is telling John to care for Mary we must understand the Jewish culture at that time. When an woman with children was widowed she would move back with her father or brother. If her father had also died and there were no brothers then one of her sons might care for her.
In this case, Jesus was the eldest son of Mary and was probably supporting her at this time. He passes the responsibility to John one of His disciples and not a son of Mary.
From the comments of Jesus we can extrapolate that Jesus was caring for Mary, which means that Mary had no brothers (at least none that were alive at this time). Taken with the extra-biblical literature that Mary had no brothers we can assume that she passed the first prerequisite that God had given as law (Num 27:8).
Now we see the reason for two different genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Not only do we see Joseph's line in Matthew 1 but also Mary's line in Luke 3. Both these genealogies show that both Mary and Joseph come from the same tribe of Judah fulfilling the second requirement by Law (Num 36:6). So the reason for God placing two genealogies is to show that Jesus being of Virgin birth came from Mary's line which was not cursed as was Joseph's. Also to show that both Mary and Joseph come from the same line which was a legal necessity if Jesus was to claim Mary's line and not Joseph's cursed line.
I agree with that. And I think there is sufficient Biblical precedent, but don't have time to chase it down right now. (Regarding Zedekiah, et al...)
Unfortunately, these days one can find "scholars" to support virtually any interpretation of the Bible.
I've encountered "gay Christians" who who can quote all kinds of so-called Biblical scholars who support their claim that the Bible teaches homosexuality is OK with God.
I'm not impressed.
Furthermore I understand that one might be able to make a case for distinctions between Jew and Israelite by using a narrow interpretation of a limited number of OT scriptures.
I don't care about such hair-splitting arguments, because the New Testament writers, the apostles and Jesus use the term Jew to refer to the Israelites, the Hebrew race and all descendants of Abraham.
This is what the term Jew meant to them.
That's good enough for me and that was my point.
In any case what you state above is not LostTribe's original argument, which I was addressing.
He challenged another poster for saying that the Jews are God's people.
That's what was responding to.
I'm going to try one more run at this.
All the NT passages you have posted had references to the Jews, Israelites and Hebrews, and Abraham-descended apparantly being used interchangably. Yes, they were, and rightly so because the Jews were Israelites, Hebrews and descended from Abraham. The reason they use "Jew" to refer to the people was because that's where the tribe of Judah was at that time, and they were the only Israelites, Hebrews and descendents of Abraham around. There are other tribes than Judah and they were elsewhere. These other tribes were also Israelites, Hebrews and descendents of Abraham.
A NT verse that would prove what your conception of this issue would have go something like this,". . .and Jesus saw all the tribes of Israel gathered together before him, thereupon He spoke, saying, "My fellow Jews. . ."
I have done only enough reading about the subject to find it (Like Gene) entertaining but unconvincing (though not necessarily anti-Semitic).
Anyway, rather than rehashing it all, it is instructive to read the debates on the subject between known credible scholars and those holding to the theory. I have to admit that a big part of my conclusion is based on trusting scholars who I respect since I don't have time or knowledge enough to spot the holes all by myself. The scholars I trust do point out the holes quite well.
As a Christian I believe the land belongs to Israel, even if I believe they didn't accept the Messiah, I still believe God considers them his chosen vessel in a way that we Gentile Christians are not and we need to honor them (this has nothing to do with God's level of love for Gentiles vs Jews as he loves each human being equally.)
Like someone quoted "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you."
I do think for the most part they are an honorable people to deal with, unlike the chaotic nations that surround them and want them extinguished just because they are there.
Go here: http://members.aol.com/kashda001/lineage.html
Of course, coming into this so late I may be missing your points.
Genesis 12:1-3
1 The Lord had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.
2 "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.
3 I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."
Please note this blessing was given to Abram, who was not Jewish. Some of Abrams offspring became Jews 1,500 years later. But most did not, yet they carry this same blessing. That includes most of todays Christians of European descent. (See my Profile for details.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.