Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Whew! Thank the Lord I'm not a protestant. :-)
Even aside from the issue of whether or not kingship could be passed on matrilineally (it couldn't), it appears that Mary was a Levite, not from the tribe of Judah.In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari'ah, of the division of Abi'jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. (Luke 1:5)Since Mary and Elizabeth were cousins (or "sisters" ;o), presumably Mary would also be from the line of Aaron.
In the post-captivity region of Judea (where several tribes lived intermixed), one of Mary's time could have multiple tribal ancestries.
Even tho its Mary's line they just mention the head of the house.
I agree. Note that all of the official ancestors mentioned (in both lineages) are male. Rahab and Ruth are named alongside their husbands in the Matthew lineage.
Yeshua is a priest after the order of Melchisedek anyway.
Yes, when the centurions "cast lots" it was gambling. When the Apostles "cast lots" it was a method of balloting.
Why does the NAB and KJV use different language?
Luke 23:34 (NAB) [Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do."] 5 They divided his garments by casting lots.
John 19:24 (NAB)
So they said to one another, "Let's not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it will be," in order that the passage of scripture might be fulfilled (that says): "They divided my garments among them, and for my vesture they cast lots." This is what the soldiers did.
Acts 1:26 (NAB)
Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.
Since you know much more than I (your statement), you must know the different usages in throughout Scripture and, of course you know the different wording in the original Greek, and the Vulgate.
Indeed, the following line brought a particular smile to my face:
Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history.... Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies? Does anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice?
Now, consider if we change just a couple of words and wrote:
Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history.... Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament,(i.e. St. Jerome) and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant contradiction between the Church's belief in Mary's perpetual virginity and the scripture, 'brother of the Lord? Does anyone actually think that the Christians(St. Jerome) were so dense that they were unaware of the differences between a literal interpretation of Scripture and Tradition, closed their eyes and put the epistles into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice?
You give Jerome too much credit. The Nucleus of the NT was accepted by most, with the exception of 5-6 books in question, couple hundred years before ol' Jerome.
Great quote. The early church also knew that Mary remained a virgin.
How early? The church announced Mary as the Mother of God sometime in 3-400 ad. Don't start at Rome, Constananople or Cantebury for your church history. Start at Jerusalem in the first century. You'll find nary a peep about Mary remaining a virgin back then.
You guy keep equating the big "C" with the early church. It doesn't compute. You even had to make your popes retroactive.
Zecharias was a priest. According to Luke, his wife was also a Levite. So it was not an inter-tribal marriage. At least one of Mary's parents, then was also a full-blooded Levite. If it was her father, then she would be Levite herself.
The only difference is that I have been told that. That we were "dumb enough" to leave stuff in that contradicts our dogma, cause we figured no one was ever, ever, going to read Scripture.
SD
Well, kingship and priesthood are Jesus' because of who He is, not His boiology. So it's irrelevant.
As for "affiliation" I am not sure what you are saying. Someone who is adopted and stays with a tribe for his entire life is not a "part" of the tribe? He can never marry, or must find some other "misfit" to marry?
SD
Luke1:5 and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
At least one of Mary's parents, then was also a full-blooded Levite.
I can live with this if the full-blooded Levite is her mother. Quick consult the pro-evangel? :-)
The Levites did not intermix. If they had, they would have been ineligible to serve as priests.
And he shall take a wife in her virginity.
A widow, or one divorced, or a woman who has been defiled, or a harlot, these he shall not marry; but he shall take to wife a virgin of his own people,
that he may not profane his children among his people; for I am the LORD who sanctify him." (Leviticus 21:13-15)
Where is your evidence? Why doesn't the dictionary capture this idea of "lots" being used to vote? Is there a reference somewhere that shows this?
SD
Oops I meant the Protevangel. I think. :-)
SD
Someone "adopted" into a different tribe (there was no legal adoption in biblical times) remained a member of the tribe in which they were born. Someone from the tribe of Judah did not gain the ability to serve as a priest simply because he was adopted into a Levite family.
Members of the different tribes could marry whomever they wished. There was no restriction on someone from Judah marrying someone from Benjamin. The children would be considered as being of the same tribe as the father. The only restriction was with the Levites, who were expected to marry within the tribe.
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.