Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 17:31:23 GMT
tpfkar "disgusting horrors" = meh. My one-year-old shits out better stuff than that. "sanguinary despot," on the other hand, is excellent. Just don't overuse it. But I would like to put in a special request to see that phrase (and more like it) out of your posts. Thanks, cupcakes! You should mostly leave your one-year-old's sh!t alone. No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.Like, what? Leave it in his diaper all day so it resembles one of your posts? But his skin would get all irritated if I left it in there. I'm getting the sense you have never taken care of a child before.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 12, 2018 17:34:45 GMT
What Heredity? The culture at the time was patriarchal. You are correct that men were used in relation to family trees. When a kid was mentioned, he tended to be mention as the son of a father which is why in Mary's lineage, after Joseph, it starts with Jesus' grandfather, Heli (Joseph's dad was Jacob) rather than Mary. Obviously this is not the same thing as women not know who their family is. Matthew's lineage makes it clear that they knew who the mother's were to so they weren't forgotten or anything. But for the purposes of heredity it would be the male line which is moot because Jesus has no male line, so for what reason was mary's heredity important? In fact I am pretty certain Mary's heredity is not mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 12, 2018 17:37:14 GMT
tpfkar You should mostly leave your one-year-old's sh!t alone. And not too many words are needed for the simple bestial Jackboot. No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.Like, what? Leave it in his diaper all day so it resembles one of your posts? But his skin would get all irritated if I left it in there. I'm getting the sense you have never taken care of a child before. Try disposing of the diaper. And I've known since not long after you showed up that freely-shared pure fantasy rules your world from end to end. And you're fond of family-use. What's your thing? Making strange people fall in love with you?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 12, 2018 17:43:15 GMT
I chose “she was convenient”. Since I ultimately believe that “Mary” was largely just a symbolic character in a greater story. I think the characteristics attributed to her were for the sake of furthering the story of Jesus. She was written the way she needed to be written in order to be a credible “mother” of Christ. I don’t think Mary was ever intended to be a central figure in the religion, or venerated above any other person. I think the focus on Mary in terms of veneration and worship ultimately misses the point of all of the gospels.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 12, 2018 18:44:53 GMT
You are correct that men were used in relation to family trees. When a kid was mentioned, he tended to be mention as the son of a father which is why in Mary's lineage, after Joseph, it starts with Jesus' grandfather, Heli (Joseph's dad was Jacob) rather than Mary. Obviously this is not the same thing as women not know who their family is. Matthew's lineage makes it clear that they knew who the mother's were to so they weren't forgotten or anything. But for the purposes of heredity it would be the male line which is moot because Jesus has no male line, so for what reason was mary's heredity important? In fact I am pretty certain Mary's heredity is not mentioned. Luke is Mary's line while Matthew is Joseph's is the common assumption. Mary's line is his natural line, it's the true blood connection, through Nathan, which fulfills prophecy no matter what. Luke simply links Mary's lineage to Joseph (Heli is his father in law, Jacob his real father) because of the whole man thing you have already acknowledged. Joseph line is the legal connection since Joseph is descended through Solomon. Jesus being the adopted son of Joseph would put him in line to qualify for the kingship. So his legal right to rule is also fulfilling prophecy in terms of identifying the Messiah as opposed to him actually wanting to be king of the Jews.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 12, 2018 18:53:48 GMT
But for the purposes of heredity it would be the male line which is moot because Jesus has no male line, so for what reason was mary's heredity important? In fact I am pretty certain Mary's heredity is not mentioned. Luke is Mary's line while Matthew is Joseph's is the common assumption. Mary's line is his natural line, it's the true blood connection, through Nathan, which fulfills prophecy no matter what. Luke simply links Mary's lineage to Joseph (Heli is his father in law, Jacob his real father) because of the whole man thing you have already acknowledged. Joseph line is the legal connection since Joseph is descended through Solomon. Jesus being the adopted son of Joseph would put him in line to qualify for the kingship. So his legal right to rule is also fulfilling prophecy in terms of identifying the Messiah as opposed to him actually wanting to be king of the Jews. I don't accept Mary heredity, in a patriarchal society it would be ignored. I am interested in the adopted thing though, it occurs to me I do not know what the inheritance lines are in 1st century palestine, do they accept adoption?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 12, 2018 19:59:50 GMT
Luke is Mary's line while Matthew is Joseph's is the common assumption. Mary's line is his natural line, it's the true blood connection, through Nathan, which fulfills prophecy no matter what. Luke simply links Mary's lineage to Joseph (Heli is his father in law, Jacob his real father) because of the whole man thing you have already acknowledged. Joseph line is the legal connection since Joseph is descended through Solomon. Jesus being the adopted son of Joseph would put him in line to qualify for the kingship. So his legal right to rule is also fulfilling prophecy in terms of identifying the Messiah as opposed to him actually wanting to be king of the Jews. I don't accept Mary heredity, in a patriarchal society it would be ignored. I am interested in the adopted thing though, it occurs to me I do not know what the inheritance lines are in 1st century palestine, do they accept adoption? It doesn't matter if you accept it or not. You yourself are admitting to the accuracy of what I say with just a touch of stubbornness for some reason, but whatever. I've lost interest... Adoption- It has been accepted in Scripture since at least Abraham although not terribly common since if there is a firstborn, there is an automatic inheritance. Further there wasn't anything like adoption papers for Joseph & Jesus. It was just acknowledge that Jesus was Joseph's son. There are references to adoption through both the OT and the NT.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 12, 2018 20:42:36 GMT
I don't accept Mary heredity, in a patriarchal society it would be ignored. I am interested in the adopted thing though, it occurs to me I do not know what the inheritance lines are in 1st century palestine, do they accept adoption? It doesn't matter if you accept it or not. You yourself are admitting to the accuracy of what I say with just a touch of stubbornness for some reason, but whatever. I've lost interest... Adoption- It has been accepted in Scripture since at least Abraham although not terribly common since if there is a firstborn, there is an automatic inheritance. Further there wasn't anything like adoption papers for Joseph & Jesus. It was just acknowledge that Jesus was Joseph's son. There are references to adoption through both the OT and the NT. thanks for the adoption info, but I was more thinking about 1st century palestine than scripture. I accept that people say Mary is Jesus Mother, but that is not an acceptance of the accuracy of mary being of hereditary importance in a patriarchal society, but the last half of your sentence is the telltale bit, I must confess I have noticed your tendency to leave a conversation when you back yourself into a corner, I wish you would not, it would be much more enjoyable to actually find out why you think what you do. As I say I wish people here would actually have conversations not just make claims they expect to get accepted.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 13, 2018 1:53:55 GMT
But for the purposes of heredity it would be the male line which is moot because Jesus has no male line, so for what reason was mary's heredity important? In fact I am pretty certain Mary's heredity is not mentioned. Luke is Mary's line while Matthew is Joseph's is the common assumption. It may be a “common” assumption, but it is also a faulty one that has been disputed by scholars for many years for a number of reasons. That is not logical. Gadreel is quite correct when he points out that it would have been highly unlikely that any author would have attributed Jesus’s linage to his mother’s side. That is completely inconsistent with how Hebrew linage would be traced. A mother’s linage is irrelevant! Furthermore a number of unrelated, apocryphal books that predate the writing of Luke agree that Mary’s actual parents were named Joachim and Anne, not Heli as Luke claims. Meaning that Heli cannot be a father of Mary. But then that would make the supposed account of genealogy through Mary even more pointless for Luke to mention. Especially if he was going to ignore the line of Joseph altogether (which you are claiming he did). So for multiple reasons that explanation just doesn’t work.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 13, 2018 3:57:44 GMT
Luke is Mary's line while Matthew is Joseph's is the common assumption. It may be a “common” assumption, but it is also a faulty one that has been disputed by scholars for many years for a number of reasons. That is not logical. Gadreel is quite correct when he points out that it would have been highly unlikely that any author would have attributed Jesus’s linage to his mother’s side. That is completely inconsistent with how Hebrew linage would be traced. A mother’s linage is irrelevant! Furthermore a number of unrelated, apocryphal books that predate the writing of Luke agree that Mary’s actual parents were named Joachim and Anne, not Heli as Luke claims. Meaning that Heli cannot be a father of Mary. But then that would make the supposed account of genealogy through Mary even more pointless for Luke to mention. Especially if he was going to ignore the line of Joseph altogether (which you are claiming he did). So for multiple reasons that explanation just doesn’t work. 'Joachim' is a varient of the name 'Heli.' Heli = Joachim
Heli = Joachim
Heli = Joachim
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 13, 2018 4:21:17 GMT
captainbryceNo it hasn't. There have certainly been other suggestions but this is the most prevailing one given the time and the culture, but please feel free to highlight your intelligence on this.Nope, it's logical. Not true and nonsensical to boot. Let's go over a few ways this notion is silly: 1. You are pretending for some reason that women would have no idea who their relatives were and it wouldn't matter how their lineage plays out. If a Jewish man knows who they are related to, then a Jewish woman did too. It's that simple. 2. The records were not for Jewish authenticity. They were for Jesus' claim as the Messiah and to ensure there was no dispute. guess what? There wasn't. Maybe hebrews wouldn't care, but considering a large portion of Christians practically worship Mary, maybe they care a little more? 3. Both Luke & Matthew followed the same tradition of focusing on the man anyway so there isn't an issue except to whine about and be stubborn. You don't seem to even know the point of any of the Gospels in the first place and now you;re trying to grasp the reason for the lineages after I told you. You are just looking to argue about something. I claimed no such thing and you haven't given one explanation for why anything you said should have even garnered the time for me to respond.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 13, 2018 4:31:51 GMT
It doesn't matter if you accept it or not. You yourself are admitting to the accuracy of what I say with just a touch of stubbornness for some reason, but whatever. I've lost interest... Adoption- It has been accepted in Scripture since at least Abraham although not terribly common since if there is a firstborn, there is an automatic inheritance. Further there wasn't anything like adoption papers for Joseph & Jesus. It was just acknowledge that Jesus was Joseph's son. There are references to adoption through both the OT and the NT. I accept that people say Mary is Jesus Mother, but that is not an acceptance of the accuracy of mary being of hereditary importance in a patriarchal society, but the last half of your sentence is the telltale bit, I must confess I have noticed your tendency to leave a conversation when you back yourself into a corner, I wish you would not, it would be much more enjoyable to actually find out why you think what you do. As I say I wish people here would actually have conversations not just make claims they expect to get accepted. It wasn't a patriarchal society. It was a Jewish one and women knew where they came from. Just because the lineage is through the men does not translate into women being forgotten and ignored. Mary knew her family, her heritage, & even her tribe. Further, the information to find these things out anyway would have been pretty easy to get just by finding out who her daddy was (Heli) Heck, you would have to know the mothers just to make sure a kid wasn't a bastard with no inheritance rights. The lineage was not a part of Jewish family records which would have already existed. In fact, it's entirely possible that Matthew & Luke simply copied them from existing records of people that actually were record keepers. The point was to remove doubts about Jesus being the Messiah - a person coming through the line of David in both a fleshly way and legal way, but I've already said that... Not sure why it would be relevant unless looking at it from Jewish history.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 13, 2018 17:11:17 GMT
I accept that people say Mary is Jesus Mother, but that is not an acceptance of the accuracy of mary being of hereditary importance in a patriarchal society, but the last half of your sentence is the telltale bit, I must confess I have noticed your tendency to leave a conversation when you back yourself into a corner, I wish you would not, it would be much more enjoyable to actually find out why you think what you do. As I say I wish people here would actually have conversations not just make claims they expect to get accepted. It wasn't a patriarchal society. It was a Jewish one and women knew where they came from. Just because the lineage is through the men does not translate into women being forgotten and ignored. Mary knew her family, her heritage, & even her tribe. Further, the information to find these things out anyway would have been pretty easy to get just by finding out who her daddy was (Heli) Heck, you would have to know the mothers just to make sure a kid wasn't a bastard with no inheritance rights. The lineage was not a part of Jewish family records which would have already existed. In fact, it's entirely possible that Matthew & Luke simply copied them from existing records of people that actually were record keepers. The point was to remove doubts about Jesus being the Messiah - a person coming through the line of David in both a fleshly way and legal way, but I've already said that... Not sure why it would be relevant unless looking at it from Jewish history. But it does translate as women are not considered in terms of lineage and heredity. My understanding is that Jesus was born into 1st century palestine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2018 17:52:17 GMT
tpfkar Like, what? Leave it in his diaper all day so it resembles one of your posts? But his skin would get all irritated if I left it in there. I'm getting the sense you have never taken care of a child before. Try disposing of the diaper. And I've known since not long after you showed up that freely-shared pure fantasy rules your world from end to end. And you're fond of family-use. What's your thing? Making strange people fall in love with you?Well, I'm sure you'll find wide agreement within your community on that one.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 17:54:53 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2018 17:57:56 GMT
In normal society, no, I'd be the opposite of obscure if I were to heed your advice and leave my one-year-old's shit in his diaper all day instead of changing the diaper like you're supposed to. But in your circles, I'd not be surprised to find I'm obscure if I think one should do something different with poop than smear it on a canvas and call it art.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 18:04:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 13, 2018 18:12:29 GMT
captainbryce No it hasn't. There have certainly been other suggestions but this is the most prevailing one given the time and the culture, but please feel free to highlight your intelligence on this.Nope, it's logical. Not true and nonsensical to boot. Let's go over a few ways this notion is silly: 1. You are pretending for some reason that women would have no idea who their relatives were and it wouldn't matter how their lineage plays out. If a Jewish man knows who they are related to, then a Jewish woman did too. It's that simple. 2. The records were not for Jewish authenticity. They were for Jesus' claim as the Messiah and to ensure there was no dispute. guess what? There wasn't. Maybe hebrews wouldn't care, but considering a large portion of Christians practically worship Mary, maybe they care a little more? 3. Both Luke & Matthew followed the same tradition of focusing on the man anyway so there isn't an issue except to whine about and be stubborn. You don't seem to even know the point of any of the Gospels in the first place and now you;re trying to grasp the reason for the lineages after I told you. You are just looking to argue about something. I claimed no such thing and you haven't given one explanation for why anything you said should have even garnered the time for me to respond. Knowing your mum is not the same as the importance of a heredity lineage. Lets be clear in a patriarchal society as you would find in 1st century palestine, knowing who your mums mum was is interesting but has absolutely no value in terms of inheritance, royal or special lineage (like are you going to be king) or anything else except knowing you have to buy an extra present at Christmas. So the question remains, in 1st century palestine what possible use is knowing Mary's heredity?
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Feb 15, 2018 12:35:31 GMT
She's simply His mother p.s. for the record... she's also sinless unlike the rest of us. NOTE: to be clear, this does not imply she's equal to God as God is the Creator and she's apart of creation. so clearly a big difference between the two. but with that said... she's basically God's masterpiece of creation. pray The Holy Rosary daily
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 15, 2018 13:06:28 GMT
Perhaps it was nothing more than a surrogate motherhood, much like those that happen these days.
|
|