Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Natural Law
In Biblical times there was no word for father-in-law, just as there was no word for grandfather. Joseph can’t be the son of both Jacob and Heli. According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Chag. 77,4), Heli was actually Mary’s father making him Joseph’s father-in-law. The reason the two genealogies are different is that Joseph was descended from Solomon while Mary was a descendant of Solomon’s older brother Nathan.

So Joseph and Mary were actually cousins although many times removed. Since Heli had no sons, Mary had to find a husband from the tribe of Judah like herself to protect her father’s estate.(See Numbers 36) She also needed a direct descendant of Solomon to perfect her son’s claim to the throne of David, since Nathan’s descendants weren’t of the Royal line.

Joseph fit the bill on both accounts but like every other descendant of Solomon’s carried a blood curse disqualifying any biological son of his from ever being King of Israel.(Jeremiah 22:28-30) Since Joseph was not the Lord’s biological father, he could adopt Him, qualifying Him to be King without passing Him the curse.

Thus, because of the virgin birth, Jesus became the only one in Israel qualified to sit on David’s throne, and remains so to this day.

http://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/are-josephs-and-marys-lineage-incorrect/

385 posted on 11/01/2011 12:01:03 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies ]


To: CynicalBear
"Jerusalem Talmud"

That the two accounts do not harmonize presents difficulties to strict Biblical literalists and Sola Scriptura proponents is well understood. Some apologists conclude that the two genealogies for Jesus trace both his royal and his human lineage. Others find a way to show Mary's lineage. I personally have wrestled with it for years because, as Jesus did not have a human father, I am not settled on the context or relevance to the theories proposed.

The conundrum you are faced with, however, is that I, and Catholics in general, do not have a problem utilizing Tradition and other non-Biblical sources to assist in the interpretation of Scripture. Relying on the Jerusalem Talmud, which is nothing more than a collection of oral traditions, is doing the very thing that you condemn and belittle Catholics for doing.

So what I am really asking you is why you think you are better than any Catholic in Scriptural integrity and why you think http://gracethrufaith.com/ is better than a Magisterium?

394 posted on 11/01/2011 12:40:44 PM PDT by Natural Law (Transubstantiation - Change we can believe in.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson