jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR) (07/25/85)
> It's also not at all clear why it's > really very important to establish that both lineages are correct (or > indeed, that either is correct). > > Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe The biblical point is that Jesus is indeed a descendant of David, and therefore legally entitled to David's throne. (Cf. many OT prophecies about a descendant of David with an eternal throne.) As I understand it, Joseph's (Jesus' "legal" father) genealogy is given to show Jesus' legal claim to the throne (as succession was, natch, through the father.) Mary's genealogy (*I think I'm gonna get it!*) is included to show his true, physical claim through her. -- AMBAR {the known universe}!ihnp4!ihlpg!jeand "To those who love it is given to hear Music too high for the human ear." --Bruce Cockburn
martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) (07/29/85)
If establishing Jesus' claim to the throne of David was important, and if this claim was so important, why did Pilate, have rex iudaeorum (Herod the Great's title in Latin) rather than rex israelis (David's title in Latin) inscribed on the cross of execution (I may have misunderstood the account and the actual inscription may have been in Greek but the actual language is not important)?
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/30/85)
In article <951@ihlpg.UUCP> jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR) writes: >> It's also not at all clear why it's >> really very important to establish that both lineages are correct (or >> indeed, that either is correct). >The biblical point is that Jesus is indeed a descendant of David, and >therefore legally entitled to David's throne. (Cf. many OT prophecies >about a descendant of David with an eternal throne.) >As I understand it, Joseph's (Jesus' "legal" father) genealogy is given to >show Jesus' legal claim to the throne (as succession was, natch, through the >father.) Mary's genealogy (*I think I'm gonna get it!*) is included to >show his true, physical claim through her. One more time: no genealogy is given for Mary! What we have are two contradictory lineages for Joseph. No more than one of them is correct, unless you apply some heavy rationalization. Now my point is NOT to denegrate Jesus' descent (through Joseph) from David; my point is that we are presented with an unresolvable dilemma whose resolution ought not to have much effect upon one's faith. Is there really anyone out there who is going to believe or not believe because Luke has the wrong lineage? (I would also point out that Luke asserts Joseph's descent elsewhere.) If one accepts that these lineages are indicative of the real one, and doesn't quibble over the exact details, I think the relative importance of the passages is better served. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "By this rose we may well see, there is one God in persons three."
glenn@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Glenn C. Scott) (08/01/85)
> <295@mit-athena.UUCP> martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) > If establishing Jesus' claim to the throne of David was important, > and if this claim was so important, why did Pilate, have rex > iudaeorum (Herod the Great's title in Latin) rather than rex israelis > (David's title in Latin) inscribed on the cross of execution (I may > have misunderstood the account and the actual inscription may have > been in Greek but the actual language is not important)? Where do you find that Pilate had Herod the Great's title inscribed on the cross ? According to John 19:19-20 the inscription said: "JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS" and is was written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek. Glenn