Why is Jesus' lineage traced back through Joseph?

[robert68]

That would be your perspective, which being temporal-minded would show contradictions, and so it is understandable that you would come to that conclusion. You would not come to the alternate conclusion unless you were eternal-minded. It is a filter, to prevent the uninitiated from apprehending certain basic operational truths. The Law is a description of the nature and character of God, who changes not. The descriptive violence in the Law operate as firing synapses, the actions prompted by those firing synapses are the hands of the Messiah. The thoughts (OT Law) and deeds (NT Jesus) carry an equal burden in the fall and the redemption. He is, the Word.

These things are irreconcilable from within the boundaries of space and time. They however, already fit together perfectly (without need of reconciliation) from within the realm of Eternity. The difference is one of temporal vs eternal perspective. What the Flatlander perceives as four-dimensional-nonsense, you perceive as eternal mumbo-jumbo.

In other words, not believing what you do means one is “temporal-minded”, which means one’s views are contradictory and they’re incapable of understanding “basic operational truths”. But of course you’re not “temporal-minded”, which would make your claims contradictory and you incapable of understanding “basic operational truths”. “Lord have mercy”

[GunnyFreedom]

In other words, not believing what you do means one is “temporal-minded”, which means one’s views are contradictory and they’re incapable of understanding “basic operational truths”. But of course you’re not “temporal-minded”, which would make your claims contradictory and you incapable of understanding “basic operational truths”. “Lord have mercy”

Excepting the bit about not believing what I do, maybe, in a cynic's eye. Lots and lots of people do not believe what I do, and I do not consider them temporal minded. Just ask TER or Erowe if they believe what I do.

It is as much a shift in perspective as it would be from the 2D planar universe of Flatland into the space-time continuum. A guy keeps accidentally bumping into the same wall, and after a while it's safe to assume that he is blind in that spot.

[Ronin Truth]

Yes, he did have rough things to say, especially for their failure to be strict enough in their observance of the Law.

No, that's not it. I'm thinking of something else. Something about a den of vipers, as I recall.

[extortion17]

Interesting. Which denominations?

You mention that you're a Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church doesn't accept the Protoevangelium of James . . .

Of course there are other sources, besides the Bible, which we can and should include in the data we consider when asking historical questions.
Who ever said there weren't? The denial of something this obvious is not implied by the doctrine people sometimes call sola scriptura.

But this doesn't mean that we have any other reliable sources for the genealogy of Jesus beyond Matthew and Luke. We don't. Regardless what any denomination may say about the Protoevangelium of James, as a historical source for the material it covers, it cannot add anything to the knowledge we can get from Matthew and Luke, since it is a much later writing that is based on those two books, and the only things it adds to what it gets from them are pious embellishments.

This last paragraph seems contradictory . . .

this doesn't mean that we have any other reliable sources for the genealogy of Jesus beyond Matthew and Luke. We don't

Protoevangelium of James . . . it cannot add anything to the knowledge we can get from Matthew and Luke

Fact : Mary had a mommy . . . nothing in Matthew or Luke discusses Mary's mommy . . . so I will have to go and read from other accounts written about 100AD
that are not from Matthew or Luke to find out who Mary's mommy and daddy is . . you know, the ones that gave her into the Jewish temple at age 3 -
those parents . . . not seeing them in either Matthew or Luke though.

So . . . I do believe as an individual - whether anybuddy in the Vatican or the country of Italy or the rest of the European Union agrees with me or not -
that there is enough to declare that Jesus' only earthly Grandmother was Anna - and that the Catholic Church does in fact acknowledge her as Virgin Mary's mother . . .
so . . . the Grandmother of the Redeemer Christ (Immaculate Conception - an entirely different monster)

Jus' sayin' . . . Matthew and Luke do not discuss the mommy that a virgin named Mary had . . . so in that regards sola scriptura could not possibly
shed even a wisp of light on that preposterous deficiency in Matthew and Luke . . .
but it was just probably just an oversight by them or their inspired thought that they just copied from Mark possibly anyway -
that is . . . to whatever extent Matthew and/or Luke borrowed or outright plagerized from the earlier Mark anyway - as some people walking on this planet still speculate they did.

The Protevangelicum of James was presumably written when other people from Jesus' days could have been around to dispute it -
but many of them may not have read it to dispute inaccuracies.

So . . . Take it or Leave it . . . your choice and your freedom of religion to accept the non-Matthew and non-Luke sources of the lineage of Jesus -
but anybuddy can see Matthew and Luke are not an exhaustive treatment of the maternal lineage of Jesus . . .
i.e. who was the great grandmother of Jesus ?
(Can ancestry.com help ? maybe but i doubt it)

.

[GunnyFreedom]

Mitochondrial DNA is a lot more resilient than Nuclide DNA, and "son of" implies both parents while "the father of" is strictly patrilineal. It is enough that your mother is an Israelite without going back several generations. I can recognize that while still mourning the lack of faith and credit that has been granted to women in our history as a species. Luke's Genealogy is best described as a list of maternal grandfather, his mother's husband, his mother's husband, his mother's husband, and so on. As a matter of pure practicality, mitochondrial DNA needs less of a check-stop than paternal DNA. So it was enough to Mary's line through Seth to know He had inherited Eve's maternal code.

[Ronin Truth]

Mitochondrial DNA is a lot more resilient than Nuclide DNA, and "son of" implies both parents while "the father of" is strictly patrilineal. It is enough that your mother is an Israelite without going back several generations. I can recognize that while still mourning the lack of faith and credit that has been granted to women in our history as a species. Luke's Genealogy is best described as a list of maternal grandfather, his mother's husband, his mother's husband, his mother's husband, and so on. As a matter of pure practicality, mitochondrial DNA needs less of a check-stop than paternal DNA. So it was enough to Mary's line through Seth to know He had inherited Eve's maternal code.

FYI, here's a link to an interesting book on DNA that I just bought from Amazon and am now working on. You'll probably hate it, but I'm finding it really fascinating, so far.


http://www.innertraditions.com/isbn/978-1-59143-185-5

Oh, and a free bonus teaser excerpt from the book PDF

http://www.innertraditions.com/asset...431855_ext.pdf

Enjoy!

[erowe1]

No, that's not it. I'm thinking of something else. Something about a den of vipers, as I recall.

What you're probably thinking of is "brood of vipers." And, as a matter of fact, yes, calling them that was in the context of criticizing them for their failure to observe the Law of Moses strictly enough in Matthew 23.

[erowe1]

This last paragraph seems contradictory . . .

How are those sentences contradictory? They say essentially the same thing. Maybe you read one as the opposite of what it says.

Fact : Mary had a mommy . . . nothing in Matthew or Luke discusses Mary's mommy . . . so I will have to go and read from other accounts written about 100AD
that are not from Matthew or Luke to find out who Mary's mommy and daddy is

There do not exist any such works. You will have to be content with not knowing the names of Mary's parents. Just like you don't know the names of lots of other biblical characters' parents.

you know, the ones that gave her into the Jewish temple at age 3 -

No, I don't know that. Neither do you. Yes, there are legends that you can read from later generations, but no historically reliable sources that mention it.

So . . . I do believe as an individual - whether anybuddy in the Vatican or the country of Italy or the rest of the European Union agrees with me or not -

Interesting. Because earlier you were trying to make it into a Protestant versus Catholic thing. Now that you know that your position contradicts the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, it suddenly doesn't matter any more.

Jesus' only earthly Grandmother was Anna - and that the Catholic Church does in fact acknowledge her as Virgin Mary's mother

Source?

The only one you've mentioned so far is one the Roman Catholic Church repudiates.

The Protevangelicum of James was presumably written when other people from Jesus' days could have been around to dispute it -

The operative word is "presumably." And the one making the presumption is you. But it isn't so. The protoevangelium of James was not written that early. It was dependent on Matthew and Luke, which it used as sources and embellishes. The only historically reliable parts of the Protoevangelium of James are the parts that it gets from Matthew and Luke, which we can already get from those books without ever looking at the Protoevangelium of James. Anything else in it is useless for those interested in the actual events and people of history.

[Ronin Truth]

What you're probably thinking of is "brood of vipers." And, as a matter of fact, yes, calling them that was in the context of criticizing them for their failure to observe the Law of Moses strictly enough in Matthew 23.

Yeah, we can certainly add the 10 Commandments to the ignored by "Christians" list along with the Golden Rule, Sermon on the Mount, love your enemies, etc.

[erowe1]

Yeah, we can certainly add the 10 Commandments to the ignored by "Christians" list along with the Golden Rule, Sermon on the Mount, love your enemies, etc.

You can add all of those to the ignored by everyone who's ever lived except Jesus list.

Unless God has some plan where he can be just, and still to forgive us of our sins, we're all doomed to a punishment that we rightfully deserve. And when we look into our own consciences, the thought of that will be so dreadful that we will either suppress it in denial, or turn to God with desperate pleading that he will save us from our sins.

[Ronin Truth]

You can add all of those to the ignored by everyone who's ever lived except Jesus list.

Unless God has some plan where he can be just, and still to forgive us of our sins, we're all doomed to a punishment that we rightfully deserve. And when we look into our own consciences, the thought of that will be so dreadful that we will either suppress it in denial, or turn to God with desperate pleading that he will save us from our sins.

It seems to me that Jesus reasonably expected to be obeyed by his followers, at least. Perhaps not perfectly, but definitely in the spirit.

[erowe1]

It seems to me that Jesus reasonably expected to be obeyed by his followers, at least. Perhaps not perfectly, but definitely in the spirit.

Of course. And not only his followers, but he also demanded obedience from everyone else. And he still does.

[Ronin Truth]

Of course. And not only his followers, but he also demanded obedience from everyone else. And he still does.

Maybe folks will finally figure out that he really means it, when he come's back next time, really pissed and no more Mr. Nice Guy, taking names and kicking butt.

Amen.

[erowe1]

Maybe folks will finally figure out that he really means it, when he come's back next time, really pissed and no more Mr. Nice Guy, taking names and kicking butt.

There's no maybe about it. They will. Every knee will bow, and every tongue confess: Jesus Christ is Lord.

[TER]

Anything else in it is useless for those interested in the actual events and people of history.

No, erowe. These writings which were not canonized may seem useless to you, but they are not. Not being placed in the canon does not mean there are not truths contained within them, but that the Church in her wisdom did not place them to the level of the canonized Scriptures for pastoral reasons. The reasons vary for each book. There are parts of the Protoevangelion of James which the same Church (which decided which books to place in the canon) hold as true and historical. You don't want to accept that because you are using your mind and the limited books of the canonized Scriptures as the only standard for reliability. But as it has been said to you over and over again starting with St. Paul, it is the Church which is the pillar of truth, not the canonized Scriptures which were not even compiled yet or what erowe thinks is reliable evidence in the year 2014.

You have every right to make your mind apart from the Church to be the decider of what is true and reliable, but that doesn't mean the apocryphal books are not useful and do not contain historical truths and wisdom. The Church, and not you, proclaims the truths. By not humbling yourself to the Church, you miss out on much of the depths of the beauty and truths of the Christian faith.

[Ronin Truth]

Let's see Church or Jesus, Church or Jesus, Church or Jesus. I think I'll take Jesus.

[TER]

Let's see Church or Jesus, Church or Jesus, Church or Jesus. I think I'll take Jesus.

It is because you have a poor understanding of the Church as the Body of Christ that you create this false dichotomy.

[Ronin Truth]

It is because you have a poor understanding of the Church as the Body of Christ that you create this false dichotomy.

No actually it's because I have a very good understanding of the bloody history and baggage of that anti-Jesus flawed corrupt evil human institution.

"By their fruits, ye shall know them."

[erowe1]

No, erowe. These writings which were not canonized may seem useless to you, but they are not. Not being placed in the canon does not mean there are not truths contained within them

The comment wasn't about some vague category of writings. It was about the Protoevangelium of James.

And the specific way in which it is useless is as historical evidence for anything regarding the infancy of Jesus or anything prior to that.

It is still useful for other things, such as providing us with evidence for the beliefs of a certain type of Christian of the mid-2nd century AD.

I never said or implied that there were no truths contained in it. It does, after all, use Matthew and Luke as its main sources. However, everything it gets from them is something we could already read in them anyway.

You don't want to accept that because you are using your mind and the limited books of the canonized Scriptures as the only standard for reliability.

Please show me the quote that indicates that I am doing this. Or else take it back. You need to quit your mind reading games. If you can't answer the points I make using the words I actually use, then take your medicine and sit down, son. But don't spit out these straw men that bear no resemblance to anything I have ever said, and that contradict what I actually do say, and then pretend you've somehow refuted my beliefs by knocking them down.

We've been over this before. If you really want to keep playing that game, the gloves will come off, and readers here will see how absolutely clueless you are about the Church Fathers you pretend to read so much. You don't speak for the Church. And half the time you claim to say something your own Church supposedly teaches, you can't even get that right.

Go ahead and come back with one of your internet links to some sermon that amounts to little more than some other clown's opinion on some other forum. Maybe you can show Ronin how it's done.

[heavenlyboy34]

No actually it's because I have a very good understanding of the bloody history and baggage of that anti-Jesus flawed corrupt evil human institution.

"By their fruits, ye shall know them."

O rlly? Could've fooled me.

[erowe1]

Let's see Church or Jesus, Church or Jesus, Church or Jesus. I think I'll take Jesus.

You've posted enough here to reveal that you don't really mean your last sentence.

[Ronin Truth]

You've posted enough here to reveal that you don't really mean your last sentence.

Well I sure wouldn't choose church......and neither would Jesus.

Congratulations on your graduation from the Institute of Mind and Soul Reading.

[Ronin Truth]

O rlly? Could've fooled me.

Apparently just about anyone can.