21 replies to this topic

[al-`Ajal Ya Imaam]

As Salaam Alaikum (Peace be Upon You) everyone,

I was asked by a Baha'i, "How do we know Mary wasn't rapped, or had an affair, and lied about the whole thing?"

Since this is an issue that affects the Muslims and the Christians, since to us she's the mother of a Messenger of God (Peace of Upon Him), and to you, she's basically the mother of God on earth, how would we respond to this?

Thank you and Was Salaam Alaikum.

[Nad_M]

We cannot prove anything today, we rely on God's word in the Quran as true. A more legitimate question would be "How do the Israelites in Mary's days know she wasn't rapped, or had an affair, and lied about the whole thing?"

To this the Quran gives a stunning demonstration.

In the Temple where Mary was raised by Zakkariya, she was protected from men's eyes, purified. During her pious dedication to the service of God, she had attained such an elevated spiritual degree that the angels spoke 19:17-21 and took care of her, brought her food, told her of her purity, chastity and how God has protected her from all types of corruption 3:37-43 and how He has chosen her 3:42"above the women of the world" in the sense that she would be conceiving miraculously one of God's most important prophets, a man "worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to Allah)".

When the angel approached Mary to give her this important news, she was told her son will be called "son of Mary". This implied he would be born without the agency of a father and therefore would be known with this name because to make the point clear that this child would have no father it would not have been enough to simply tell her she would bear a child as seen in Sara's case 11:71-3, hence Mary's astonishement as to what that statement implied in 3:47, ie the fact that she will be pregnant miraculously without a male touching her. In semitic tradition a person was identified by the father's name so nothing could have been more striking in the psyche of a woman of the time to be told that her son will not be identified by his affiliation to a male, but to a woman.

The phrase "son of Mary" also informs her that she would jointly share this sign with him forever as both of their names will be mentionned together 23:50,21:91"and made her and her son a sign for the worlds". This way God was realising His pledge of linking her to Jesus as "A" sign to humanity.

The NT writers firstly wanted Jesus to be linked to Joseph -hence him being referred to as son of Joseph- in order to trace him up to King David and fulfill the criteria for the Messiah's lineage and secondly tried "protecting" Mary's public image, painting her as being engaged before her pregnancy and married when she delivered meaning the virgin birth was a secret yet this was of the most crucial fulfilements of OT prophecies the Israelites had to know from the very beginning to identify the awaited savior Isa7:14,Matt1:22"All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel". Jesus had thus to be known as special since the very beginning, no matter what the NT absurdly says about him not being known among his people in any particular way before adulthood Matt13.

Yet the same NT that tells us his people knew nothing special about him prior to his ministry also tells us that in his earliest days accompagnied by celestial signs that prompted both friends and foes to look for him even from outside Palestine, people such as the Magi coming "from the east" to worship the newly born "king of the Jews", and king Herod who, fearing for his throne, began slaughtering all male infants born in Bethleem at that particular time which prompted Mary to flee with her son to Nazareth Matt2. The NT establishes the fact that it was well known in and outside Palestine that the awaited savior had come, and countless people identified him with Jesus since his youngest days as seen from the time of Mary's miraculous conception which caused Elizabeth to refer to her as "mother of my Lord" as she saw her pregnant Lk1, the shepherds who rushed to Bethleem to see the newly born Messiah of whom the angels told them about and after seeing him Lk2:17"they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them" or Anna, the daughter of Penuel as well as Simeon who recognized in the newly born Jesus the awaited savior and told others about him Lk2, the astonishement of all learned people as they heard the child at the Temple displaying the wisdom and knowledge God granted him.

Going back to Mary's pregnancy. When she was at an advanced point of her pregnancy, she withdrew to a remote place that she might deliver, away from the Temple in order to escape any accusation of the people at a supposedly chaste and pious woman devoted in the sanctuary to God's service conceiving outside wedlock and in addition in the sanctuary itself and under the guardianship of Zakkariya one of the most highly regarded Temple devotee and prophet 19:22. As the suffering of childbirth began, she sat under a palm tree where a voice called her with comforting words and showed her the sustenance of food and water put at her disposal within easy reach 19:23-6.

Now God inspired her, taking in charge the responsibility of answering the critics among her people with compelling evidence 19:26"Then if you see any mortal, say: Surely I have vowed a fast to the Beneficent Allah, so I shall not speak to any man today". As a woman known for her chastity because of having lived secluded in dedication to Allah's worship all her life, Mary was received with suspicion when she came back to her people with the newborn. A priest's daughter had to exemplify modesty and piety and tradition asserts that should she commit a sin such as fornication she would suffer a punishment worse than that of regular women. So to remove all doubts -justifiable to some extent- of seeing an unmarried woman supposed to represent the epitome of piety and chastity conceiving and bringing forth a child, Isa while in the craddle spoke in defense of his innocent mother 19:27-33. Mary could not bring evidence of her virginity anymore so the only way she could dispell all doubts was to prove this child is a miracle from God so he cannot be the product of sin. The blessed Mary, who was previously divinely ordered to remain silent in the face of criticism simply "pointed to him" in order to let him speak and prove he is from God, not from any human which Isa did by clarifying his identity, purity, and the fact he has been made "dutiful" to his mother only, contrary to Yahya was was made "dutiful" to both parents 19:14 meaning Isa had no father contrary to Yayha.

They were then given 23:50"shelter on a lofty ground having meadows and springs" until Jesus' ministry. When he began his ministry among the Israelites, denouncing them, exposing their leaders for their hypocrisy, moral degradation and its consequences, those same Jews who had absolutely no ground for suspicion about his miraculous birth without father because God had caused the whole community to stand as witness to the miracle, started accusing Mary of the most grievious calumny in order to put a stain on Jesus. In their mind, this stain would decredibilise his claim of prophethood, because of being the product of fornication. They were once again mistreating, rejecting, and blaspheming against a prophet sent to them with that which they did not like despite witnessing clear signs. At this point, Allah qualified their accusation of being a "monstruous calumny" because they knew it for certain that Mary and her son were absolutely free from this taint. It wasnt real honest suspicion, which they might be harboring in their hearts as they did in the beginning, but it was a pure, invented calumny with a clear evil aim; opposing the Truth and hindering the people from the Way of God. That is why Allah declared it to be "disbelief" in addition to it being a calumny 4:156.

Edited by Nad_M, 14 August 2012 - 08:57 PM.

[Sapphire]

I would punch the guy in the face and then answer his question.

[al-`Ajal Ya Imaam]

Nad_M, on 14 August 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

We cannot prove anything today, we rely on God's word in the Quran as true. A more legitimate question would be "How do the Israelites in Mary's days know she wasn't rapped, or had an affair, and lied about the whole thing?"

To this the Quran gives a stunning demonstration.

In the Temple where Mary was raised by Zakkariya, she was protected from men's eyes, purified. During her pious dedication to the service of God, she had attained such an elevated spiritual degree that the angels spoke 19:17-21 and took care of her, brought her food, told her of her purity, chastity and how God has protected her from all types of corruption 3:37-43 and how He has chosen her 3:42"above the women of the world" in the sense that she would be conceiving miraculously one of God's most important prophets, a man "worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to Allah)".

When the angel approached Mary to give her this important news, she was told her son will be called "son of Mary". This implied he would be born without the agency of a father and therefore would be known with this name because to make the point clear that this child would have no father it would not have been enough to simply tell her she would bear a child as seen in Sara's case 11:71-3, hence Mary's astonishement as to what that statement implied in 3:47, ie the fact that she will be pregnant miraculously without a male touching her. In semitic tradition a person was identified by the father's name so nothing could have been more striking in the psyche of a woman of the time to be told that her son will not be identified by his affiliation to a male, but to a woman.

The phrase "son of Mary" also informs her that she would jointly share this sign with him forever as both of their names will be mentionned together 23:50,21:91"and made her and her son a sign for the worlds". This way God was realising His pledge of linking her to Jesus as "A" sign to humanity.

The NT writers firstly wanted Jesus to be linked to Joseph -hence him being referred to as son of Joseph- in order to trace him up to King David and fulfill the criteria for the Messiah's lineage and secondly tried "protecting" Mary's public image, painting her as being engaged before her pregnancy and married when she delivered meaning the virgin birth was a secret yet this was of the most crucial fulfilements of OT prophecies the Israelites had to know from the very beginning to identify the awaited savior Isa7:14,Matt1:22"All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel". Jesus had thus to be known as special since the very beginning, no matter what the NT absurdly says about him not being known among his people in any particular way before adulthood Matt13.

Yet the same NT that tells us his people knew nothing special about him prior to his ministry also tells us that in his earliest days accompagnied by celestial signs that prompted both friends and foes to look for him even from outside Palestine, people such as the Magi coming "from the east" to worship the newly born "king of the Jews", and king Herod who, fearing for his throne, began slaughtering all male infants born in Bethleem at that particular time which prompted Mary to flee with her son to Nazareth Matt2. The NT establishes the fact that it was well known in and outside Palestine that the awaited savior had come, and countless people identified him with Jesus since his youngest days as seen from the time of Mary's miraculous conception which caused Elizabeth to refer to her as "mother of my Lord" as she saw her pregnant Lk1, the shepherds who rushed to Bethleem to see the newly born Messiah of whom the angels told them about and after seeing him Lk2:17"they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them" or Anna, the daughter of Penuel as well as Simeon who recognized in the newly born Jesus the awaited savior and told others about him Lk2, the astonishement of all learned people as they heard the child at the Temple displaying the wisdom and knowledge God granted him.

Going back to Mary's pregnancy. When she was at an advanced point of her pregnancy, she withdrew to a remote place that she might deliver, away from the Temple in order to escape any accusation of the people at a supposedly chaste and pious woman devoted in the sanctuary to God's service conceiving outside wedlock and in addition in the sanctuary itself and under the guardianship of Zakkariya one of the most highly regarded Temple devotee and prophet 19:22. As the suffering of childbirth began, she sat under a palm tree where a voice called her with comforting words and showed her the sustenance of food and water put at her disposal within easy reach 19:23-6.

Now God inspired her, taking in charge the responsibility of answering the critics among her people with compelling evidence 19:26"Then if you see any mortal, say: Surely I have vowed a fast to the Beneficent Allah, so I shall not speak to any man today". As a woman known for her chastity because of having lived secluded in dedication to Allah's worship all her life, Mary was received with suspicion when she came back to her people with the newborn. A priest's daughter had to exemplify modesty and piety and tradition asserts that should she commit a sin such as fornication she would suffer a punishment worse than that of regular women. So to remove all doubts -justifiable to some extent- of seeing an unmarried woman supposed to represent the epitome of piety and chastity conceiving and bringing forth a child, Isa while in the craddle spoke in defense of his innocent mother 19:27-33. Mary could not bring evidence of her virginity anymore so the only way she could dispell all doubts was to prove this child is a miracle from God so he cannot be the product of sin. The blessed Mary, who was previously divinely ordered to remain silent in the face of criticism simply "pointed to him" in order to let him speak and prove he is from God, not from any human which Isa did by clarifying his identity, purity, and the fact he has been made "dutiful" to his mother only, contrary to Yahya was was made "dutiful" to both parents 19:14 meaning Isa had no father contrary to Yayha.

They were then given 23:50"shelter on a lofty ground having meadows and springs" until Jesus' ministry. When he began his ministry among the Israelites, denouncing them, exposing their leaders for their hypocrisy, moral degradation and its consequences, those same Jews who had absolutely no ground for suspicion about his miraculous birth without father because God had caused the whole community to stand as witness to the miracle, started accusing Mary of the most grievious calumny in order to put a stain on Jesus. In their mind, this stain would decredibilise his claim of prophethood, because of being the product of fornication. They were once again mistreating, rejecting, and blaspheming against a prophet sent to them with that which they did not like despite witnessing clear signs. At this point, Allah qualified their accusation of being a "monstruous calumny" because they knew it for certain that Mary and her son were absolutely free from this taint. It wasnt real honest suspicion, which they might be harboring in their hearts as they did in the beginning, but it was a pure, invented calumny with a clear evil aim; opposing the Truth and hindering the people from the Way of God. That is why Allah declared it to be "disbelief" in addition to it being a calumny 4:156.

Thank you bro, that is a solid answer

[Son of Placid]

Your sister in faith, on 15 August 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

I would punch the guy in the face and then answer his question.

LOL. Let me know if that works for you.

My response would be "Even the Muslims know better."

On another note;

I know this is a Shia site, and that it's almost a must to get in a poke or two about christianity but making claims backed up by irrelevent verses only serves to deceive. Everybody wants truth but....

By what logic would the "NT writters" want to link Jesus to Joseph? Make Jesus his child therefore anulling any chance of a virgin birth? I assume these NT writers are the same ones you accuse of rewriting the NT to make Jesus God? This kind of logic comes from reading too many (other) books.

Who linked Jesus with Joseph? The Jews, who else? The reference to son of Joseph is in John 6:42. Not "NT writers" but the Jews they wrote about. Now doesn't that make more sense? Context is a wonderful thing, aweful hard on your argument, but hey...

Same verse ---> Not only do the Jews call him the son of Joseph but they also state quite clearly "Isn't that Jesus, Joe and Mary's kid?
What's absurd is to think the NT would make such a claim that nobody knew Jesus before adulthood in the first place. As a boy Jesus was in Jerusalem every year, by age 12 he was astounding the elders in the temple with his wisdom. Don't forget to read the rest of Luke 2.

Matt 13 is some of the parables Jesus taught. It's good to go thru them from time to time, but nada to do with any absurd NT claims.

This is why I say most NT corruption is Muslim made.

How many angels (3:42) does it take to make one perfect man, (19:17)?

[Nad_M]

All your questions are answered in my previous post. The unknown NT writers linked Jesus to Joseph in an attempt to establish his lineage to king David, one of the most crucial requierements of the jewish Messiah (an attempt that failed due to several blunders in Jesus' made up genealogies that completely exclude him from being the jewish king-messiah, but that is another discussion).
But being the inept writers they are known to be, they have by the same token created the absurd scenario that the virgin birth was a hidden to everyone besides Mary and Joseph yet it is a prophecy clearly stated in Isaiah the Jews had to know about in order to identify the promised one. The Quran corrects this falsehood by showing Mary as unmarried when she gave birth and clearly stating all the community knew about it from the beginning as they witnessed the miracle of the talking infant.

Quote

The reference to son of Joseph is in John 6:42. Not "NT writers" but the Jews they wrote about.

Sure, the Jews they wrote about.

Quote

What's absurd is to think the NT would make such a claim that nobody knew Jesus before adulthood in the first place.

What i said and what the NT is clear on, is that Jesus was unknown in any particular way prior to his ministry Matt13"“Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

Yet the same NT that tells us his people knew nothing special about him prior to his ministry also speaks of all the wonderful signs and events surrounding his infancy and childhood and you want to tell us NT corruption, which pretty much all secular and christian religious scholars agree upon to diffferent degrees, is a Muslim made up story?

Edited by Nad_M, 15 August 2012 - 06:41 PM.

[Son of Placid]

Nad_M, on 15 August 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

All your questions are answered in my previous post. The unknown NT writers linked Jesus to Joseph in an attempt to establish his lineage to king David, one of the most crucial requierements of the jewish Messiah (an attempt that failed due to several blunders in Jesus' made up genealogies that completely exclude him from being the jewish king-messiah, but that is another discussion).
But being the inept writers they are known to be, they have by the same token created the absurd scenario that the virgin birth was a hidden to everyone besides Mary and Joseph yet it is a prophecy clearly stated in Isaiah the Jews had to know about in order to identify the promised one. The Quran corrects this falsehood by showing Mary as unmarried when she gave birth and clearly stating all the community knew about it from the beginning as they witnessed the miracle of the talking infant.

The lineage of Jesus is recorded in two places: Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. It seems as if these two genealogies of Jesus contradict. Do they? Most biblical scholars say that Luke is referring to the genealogy of Mary and that the genealogy recorded in Matthew is of Joseph. The Matthew genealogy follows Joseph's line (Jesus' legal father), through David's son Solomon. Luke follows Mary's line (Jesus' blood mother), through David's son Nathan.
It is customary to record lineage through the father so don't be so surprised it's there. Tracing a genealogy through the mother's line is somewhat unusual, but the virgin birth is unusual enough to prompt the record. No conspiracy there, sorry.

Quote

Sure, the Jews they wrote about.

So what did the other Jews, (the ones not written about) call him? Venture a guess maybe?

Quote

What i said and what the NT is clear on, is that Jesus was unknown in any particular way prior to his ministry Matt13"“Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

Yet the same NT that tells us his people knew nothing special about him prior to his ministry also speaks of all the wonderful signs and events surrounding his infancy and childhood and you want to tell us NT corruption, which pretty much all secular and christian religious scholars agree upon to diffferent degrees, is a Muslim made up story?

Nope, not saying what's written is a Muslim made up anything...yet. Just saying that if you lay it all out like a conspiracy and nobody checks your references in context they might believe you. That's actually mentioned in the Quran as corruption. It accuses people of reading one thing saying another. I'll have to look that up again. I thought it was referring to the past, hadn't thot it still in the present but it's obviously possible. There's an ayat that might have more than one meaning.

Besides, what is the point of this anyway? What's the "bad" part of this? NT says lots of celestial celebration and attention as a child.

So Jesus (the kid) didn't run around pulling miracles on his neighbours. He didn't teach before he started teaching. He didn't expose himself before he was ready. He didn't wear a "Prophet" hat, neither did Muhammad. A moot point at best with the intent to shed bad light.

[omar111]

Christians can never admit that there is a contradiction in Bible, so they must answer that Luke was tracing the Genealogy of Jesus from Mary. But there are many problems with this theory.
Even if Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, Bible command Luke to trace Jesus’ genealogy from him
⁵"If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband's brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.
⁶And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. (Deut. 25:5-6)

If Luke was breaking this tradition, and was writing for the first time in Jewish history, from the mother`s side. He must mention this fact.
If Mathew traced his history from Joseph, and he was not the father as Luke portrayed him
²³Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, (Luke 3:23) then Mathew was wrong.
If you argue that Joseph is the actual son of Jacob (Matthew) and the legal son of Heli (Luke), then they are half related through bloodlines. So Jesus' brothers were born out of incest.
⁵⁵Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? (Matt. 13:55)

Paul was aware of these difficulties and his advice was
"Shun foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law; for they are unprofitable and worthless" (Titus 3:9)  
Instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation" (1 Tim. 1:3-4)

[Nad_M]

Perhaps your paradigm is so enforced its causing you to go over most of the information without wanting to grasp it. This in turn leads you to make such baseless assertions as:

Son of Placid, on 15 August 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

Just saying that if you lay it all out like a conspiracy and nobody checks your references in context they might believe you. That's actually mentioned in the Quran as corruption. It accuses people of reading one thing saying another.

- The OT doesnt assert that tribal lineage to king David is the most crucial of requirements for the jewish king messiah? If not, why does the NT consecrate almost 2 entire chapters solely to this end? Knowing the Jewish law regarding linage that goes exclusively through the father, how do the NT writers establish that lineage if not by attributing an adoptive father to Jesus?

- The OT doesnt announce to all Israel in the chapter of Isaiah how to recognize the awaited one from birth, and yet we have the NT portraying the virgin birth as a secret nobody knew about except for Joseph and Mary?

- The NT doesnt state in Matt13 Jesus was unknown in any particular way to his comunity prior to his ministry yet the same NT dwells at length on all the wonderful signs and wonders surrounding Jesus' infancy that led people both in and outside Palestine to recognize him as the awaited savior of Israel?

Nad_M said:

Sure, the Jews they wrote about.

Son of Placid, on 15 August 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

So what did the other Jews, (the ones not written about) call him? Venture a guess maybe?

My guess is you're unable to read properly and this will be my last post to you because until now all i've been doing is re-stating what i said since the beginning. Did you see which word was bolded and underlined? They, the unknown NT writers, are reporting the events and they have been shown to be fabricators and purposeful liars. The Jews didnt refer to Jesus as "son of Joseph" because Jesus never had a father, whether adoptive or else.

Son of Placid, on 15 August 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

The lineage of Jesus is recorded in two places: Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. It seems as if these two genealogies of Jesus contradict. Do they?

Puting aside the issue of contradiction for a moment. The big problem with both genealogies is the blunders they both make in an attempt to trace Jesus up to David and these error paint Jesus, according to the requirements laid out in the OT, as a false messiah.

The OT's requirements for the Jewish Messiah are primarly based on lineage. According to Jer30:7,33:17,Ps89:34 that anointed King is to come exclusively from David's line and more precisely from David's son, Solomon's descent 1Chron22:9,2Sam7:12-16.

In addition, the king of Judah named Jeconiah/Jehoiachin/Coniah's line was cursed and excluded from the royal line forever Jer22:24. This means the king Messiah must be descended from King Solomon but not descended from King Jeconiah. That last requirement automatically cancels the writer of Matthew's gospel's attempt at tracing Jesus' genealogy to David, since he mistakenly includes Jeconiah in his listing Matt1:1. Another important point is the fact that in Jewish law, genealogy is traced specifically through the father because only the male passes on his tribal rights to the biological descendants. There are many examples including Ex40:15,Numb1:2,18,25:12-13,Jer33:17,Ezra2:59-61. The census was conducted paternally as well.

Because the virgin birth undermines the notion of Jesus being the Messiah, one is forced to consider this as if Joseph passed on the tribal rights via adoption, even though such rights do not exist. The only rights of inheritance that accrue to an adopted child are those pertaining to tangible assets, such as property, not blood-rights and/or curses. When a Jewish child is adopted he still retains the lineage of his biological father. A Benjamite adopted by a Levite priest would never become a priest from example. There are examples in the Tanakh of a priest who adopts a son from another tribe. In Ezra2:61,2Samuel21:2 the children of Barzillai's daughter were called by his name and they were not considered Levites, nor Jews. Or in 2Kings11:1, Athalia went on to destroy "all those of royal descent" following the death of her sons. Had it been possible to pass on the royal line via adoption she would have just done it.

And even if such passing of rights via adoption existed, Matthew's genealogy mistakenly includes the cursed Jeconiah's name.

In Luke3's genealogy, which is attributed to Joseph as well, Jeconiah isnt in the listing but it does not mention King Solomon's name either and lists in Luke 3:27 Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (see also Matt1:12) who are both descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. Luke3:31 further states that Jesus was the descendant of Solomon's brother Nathan, eliminating any legitimate claim to the throne.

Some Chrisitans try claiming Luke3's genealogy is through Mary because it mentions Heli at the beginning, her alleged father. But where in the NT is it stated that Heli is Mary's father? and if such mention is non-existant then why would one assume Luke means "Mary" when he writes "son of Joseph"? Where is the name "Mary" in Luke's genealogy, keeping in mind the introduction to Jesus' line as such "He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli" meaning both Luke and Matthew, who knew very well the uselessness of presenting a genealogy through the mother from the point of view of Jewish law, were both attempting to trace Jesus' genealogy through his step-father Joseph? Also, when a Jewish girl marries into another tribe (than the one they are born into) they lose their tribal status of birth and take that of their husband, meaning Mary's genealogy becomes meaningless to the discussion.

Besides, even Luke's genealogy still lists in Lk3:27 names from the cursed Jeconiah's descendants. It is no surprise that people such a Paul seem to throw the towel in the face of this problem Titus3:9"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain".

Edited by Nad_M, 16 August 2012 - 05:21 AM.

[Son of Placid]

This they, that they, it's not a pick n choose they. Note the "they" I was referring to is the Jews mentioned in the verse preceding the "they" You are trying to confuse the issue. Take a look.

Quote

⁴¹ At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” ⁴² They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph,  whose father and mother we know?  How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

The Jews didn't believe in a virgin birth so of course they consider him the son of Joseph. No Christian would nor would the writers. You can't just decide what you hope is corrupt. I boldened the words above so it is easier to see the relationship. Not so much for you, (as I think you knew better) but for those who thought you were headed towards a point.

[Nad_M]

One last time for you:

Yes the Jews are alleged to have referred to him as the son of Joseph, by those unknown NT writers who attributed to him an adoptive father to trace him up to king David. The writers had every reason to make him Joseph's son, and make him known as Joseph's son, because without a father they cannot claim him to be the jewish Messiah. But not only did they fail to trace him up to David, but they also painted the absurd scenario that the virgin birth, a prophecy all of Israel is supposed to know about from the beginning, was a secret nobody knew about outside Mary and Joseph.

Edited by Nad_M, 19 August 2012 - 06:09 PM.

[Son of Placid]

Was Jesus supposed to wear a sign on his head? Maybe a ball cap that says "I'm kind of a big deal"

In those days how far did you have to move before you ran into people that didn't know you?

Your argument doesn't get any stronger no matter how many times you repeat it.

[Nad_M]

Your OT states he had to be known by some specific signs (among them the virgin birth prophecied centuries ago) from the very beginning, by all of Israel. The NT renders these signs and prophecies useless and hidden from all Israelites. Its just one of those blunders of the NT you'll have to get used to, no matter how many times you deny it.

[placid]

Hi Nad,

Quote from Post 13:
Your OT states he had to be known by some specific signs (among them the virgin birth prophecied centuries ago) from the very beginning, by all of Israel. The NT renders these signs and prophecies useless and hidden from all Israelites. Its just one of those blunders of the NT you'll have to get used to, no matter how many times you deny it.

Response: --- After confirming the fulfillment of the prophecy of the virgin birth in Matthew 1, it says this in chapter 2:
1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem,
2 saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.”
3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.
5 So they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet:
6 ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
Are not the least among the rulers of Judah;
For out of you shall come a Ruler
Who will shepherd My people Israel.’”
7 Then Herod, when he had secretly called the wise men, determined from them what time the star appeared.
8 And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the young Child, and when you have found Him, bring back word to me, that I may come and worship Him also.”
9 When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was.
10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceedingly great joy.
11 And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
12 Then, being divinely warned in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed for their own country another way.
13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.”
14 When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt,
15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”

16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men.
17 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying:
18 “A voice was heard in Ramah,
Lamentation, weeping, and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children,
Refusing to be comforted,
Because they are no more.”

--- Even from his birth Jesus was known about in all of Jerusalem.
When the wise men asked, “Where is He who is born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.”
--- This involved a number of signs and fulfillment of prophecy. --- (And Herod did not want another King in his domain so he tried to destroy Jesus as a child.)

--- He was well known for His Signs and miracles of healing which fulfilled the prophecy in Malachi 4:
2. But to you who fear My name
The Sun of Righteousness shall arise
With healing in His wings;

--- And it records this in Matthew 4:
23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people.
24 Then His fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases and torments, and those who were demon-possessed, epileptics, and paralytics; and He healed them.
25 Great multitudes followed Him—from Galilee, and from Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and beyond the Jordan.

--- It said this at His ‘Triumphal Entry’ into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, in Matthew 21:
4 All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:
5 “Tell the daughter of Zion,
‘Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.’”
6 So the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them.
7 They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them (the clothes).
8 And a very great multitude spread their clothes on the road; others cut down branches from the trees and spread them on the road.
9 Then the multitudes who went before and those who followed cried out, saying:
“Hosanna to the Son of David!
‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’
Hosanna in the highest!”
10 And when He had come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, “Who is this?”
11 So the multitudes said, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee.”

--- And at His trial, Pilate asked Him this, in Matthew 27:
11. Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked Him, saying, “Are You the King of the Jews?”
Jesus said to him, “It is as you say.”
12 And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing.
13 Then Pilate said to Him, “Do You not hear how many things they testify against You?”
14 But He answered him not one word, so that the governor marveled greatly.


Placid

[Saintly_Jinn23]

Just to add to the answer to Son of Placid's question, some early Christian sects actually did believe that Jesus Christ was Joseph's biological son. Meaning: they didn't believe Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin. Some of the Ebionites were said to believe this. It was also said that the followers of a teacher named Cerinthus, the Cerinthians, who kept typical Jewish customs of law that Pauline Christianity largely did away with (circumcision, abstaining from pork, etc.) believed Jesus was born from Joseph's seed. Both the Cerinthians and the Ebionites were said to use a "version of the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew letters" It's possible that some of those particular Christian sects who believed Joseph was Jesus' biological father wrote out a genealogy themselves in one of their books in an attempt to link Jesus to David biologically through Joseph the Carpenter and this genealogy later came to find itself in a later edit more fitted to Orthodox doctrine and this edit is today's version of Matthew. Just a thought.

[Son of Placid]

I'm sure Jesus was an assumed son of Joseph. When I see a new family in the area I assume mother, father, and kids. Unless explained I'd never think step mom or dad. Maybe it's my niave nature even though nowadays I meet pregnant mothers with three kids and a third father in wait.

The big oowowoowee here is Jesus was supposed to be famous but wasn't. As a child I was in the local newspaper of a small town, easily enough, known as Placid's son. After we moved I was on the radio, nobody knew me, I moved again, was on TV, nobody knew me, nobody remembers. That's with today's technology, imagine who knows who a days travel away, (30 miles) I did a few walkathons. Then walk a couple more days, who would know you? They might have heard, but nobody sent pictures from cell phones in those days.

[placid]

Hi Saintly,

On checking the Ebionites, I found this:
Quote: Gospel of the Ebionites is the conventional name given to the description by Epiphanius of Salamis of a gospel used by the Ebionites. All that is known of the gospel text consists of seven brief quotations found in Chapter 30 of a heresiology written by Epiphanius known as the Panarion. The quotations were used as part of a polemic to point out inconsistencies in the beliefs and practices of the Ebionites relative to Nicene orthodoxy.[1] The seven citations are numbered GE 1 to GE 7 in Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha.[2]
The original title of the gospel is unknown. Epiphanius mistakenly identifies it as the "Hebrew" gospel, believing it to be a truncated and modified version of the Gospel of Matthew. The text is a gospel harmony of the Synoptic Gospels composed in Greek with various expansions and abridgments reflecting the theology of the writer.[3] ---  *** Distinctive features of the text include the absence of the virgin birth and genealogy of Jesus, *** --- an adoptionist Christology in which Jesus is chosen to be God's son at the time of his baptism, Jesus' appointed task of abolishing the Jewish sacrifices, and an advocacy of the practice of vegetarianism.[4] The gospel harmony is believed to have been composed sometime during the first half of the 2nd century in or around the region East of the Jordan River.[5] The gospel text was said to be used by "Ebionites" during the time of the early church,[6] however the identity of the group or groups that used the text remains a matter of conjecture.[7]

Cerinthus (Greek: Κήρινθος) — (c. 100 CE) was a gnostic and to some, an early Christian, who was prominent as a "heresiarch" in the view of the early Church Fathers.[1] Contrary to proto-orthodox Christianity, Cerinthus's school followed the Jewish law, used the Gospel according to the Hebrews, denied that the Supreme God had made the physical world, and denied the divinity of Jesus. In Cerinthus' interpretation, the Christ came to Jesus at baptism, guided him in his ministry, but left him at the crucifixion.

The Ebionites, meaning ‘poor ones’ or ‘poor men’ followed the Church Fathers in the second century or later and were still around in the fourth century as they were mentioned as opposing the Nicene Creed.

Their sect, as well as the Cerinthians seemed to arise from a mixture of OT Law and NT teaching.
--- The Part I marked says *** Distinctive features of the text include the absence of the virgin birth and genealogy of Jesus, ***

Your thought that they had anything to do with the ‘genealogy of Jesus’ to identify Him with Joseph isn’t mentioned, at all.
Furthermore, they couldn’t backdate and change the Gospel of Matthew which would have been written nearly 100 years earlier and was widely distributed.

And more importantly, Mathew plainly states that there was no personal connection between Joseph and Jesus.
Since Matthew wrote his Gospel account to the Jews, he identifies that Joseph was the ‘husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus,’

--- In the Jewish records Jesus was naturally listed as Joseph's son, but notice this in Matthew 1:
16. And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ. --- (You see, Jesus was a ‘legal’ descendant of David through Solomon and Joseph, --- and a blood descendant of David through Nathan and  Mary.)

18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying:
23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife,
25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.


Placid

[Ruq]

It always confused me how the 'begating' in the gospels links Jesus(as) to abraham(as) through Joseph. If Joseph's not Jesus's(as) dad, how can he be linked through him? i never asked anyone about it though, so maybe someone here can explain(?)

[Haydar Husayn]

~Ruqaya, on 29 August 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

It always confused me how the 'begating' in the gospels links Jesus(as) to abraham(as) through Joseph. If Joseph's not Jesus's(as) dad, how can he be linked through him? i never asked anyone about it though, so maybe someone here can explain(?)

Yeah, that never made sense to me either. According to the Bible, the Messiah is supposed to descend from David , which isn't possible in the case of Jesus , since Joseph wasn't his father. However, that isn't as bad as the fact that Matthew and Luke give different genealogies of Jesus . Various explanations have been given for this (for example that the genealogy in Luke is through Mary, even though it says it's through Jospeh), but none of them really seem all that satisfactory. The most probable explanation is that they were simply both made up independently, so it's no surprise that they don't match up.

[placid]

Hi Ruqaya,

Quote from Post 18:
It always confused me how the 'begating' in the gospels links Jesus(as) to abraham(as) through Joseph. If Joseph's not Jesus's(as) dad, how can he be linked through him? i never asked anyone about it though, so maybe someone here can explain(?)

Response: --- As I said above,
--- In the Jewish records Jesus was naturally listed as Joseph's son, but notice this in Matthew 1:
16. And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.
If you follow the genealogy in Matthew 1 it gives the descendants from Abraham to King David and from David through Solomon down to Joseph.
The blood line from David to Jesus did not come through his foster father, Joseph, but through His mother, Mary.

If you read Luke 2 you can see that at that time Caesar Augustus called for a census to be taken. This meant that all the families had to return to their own cities to be registered.  Joseph and Mary were from Nazareth in Galilee, but they had to make the trip to the city of David, or Bethlehem, in Judea, because they were both descendants of David.
In Jewish records they always followed the male line of descent, and as Jesus was born while they were there, then Jesus would be registered as the ‘legal’ son of Joseph, a descendant of David through his son Solomon.

But Matthew clarifies it by identifying Joseph this way in Matthew 1:16
--- “Joseph was the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus.”
Because Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, He did not have a biological father.

To go back to Luke, it gives the genealogy from King David through another son, Nathan, and down to Mary.
Joseph couldn’t have had two lines of descent, and Luke clarifies it by saying it this way, in 3:
23. Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,
---To say, (as was supposed) agrees with Matthew 1, that Jesus was not a biological son of Joseph, though that is what the records would show.

--- However, to follow the male line it mentions Joseph in the genealogy.
It would have clarified it better for us had it simply said it this way:
--- ‘being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son (in law) of Heli.

My son-in-law calls me Father, which is the case in many families.
--- But to clarify it, Mary was the daughter of Heli, and the genealogy follows back to Nathan, the son of David, then to Abraham, and even back to Adam in v38.

So Jesus was a blood descendant of King David through Mary, His mother. --- As it says in Luke 1:
30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus.
32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.


Placid

[Ruq]

Hi Placid, just not sure why Josephs is being used at all, as he's not biologically related to Jesus(as). Its a bit like who cares who he's related to if he's not related to Jesus(as).

[placid]

Hi Ruqaya,

Joseph and Mary were engaged to be married as it says in Matthew 1:
¹⁸ Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
¹⁹ Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.
²⁰ But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
²¹ And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
²² So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying:
²³ “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
²⁴ Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife,
²⁵ and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.


--- They were both faithful to God and obedient to Him, --- so should they not have gotten married?

They waited till after Jesus was born before they came together.  --- (I know, that sounds quite hard to believe in our day and age, but that was when people were obedient to God.) ---

Joseph was a carpenter and provided for the family. --- (Was it not a proper marriage?)

They had four sons and at least two daughters after Jesus was born.

Two of the sons, James and Jude wrote the two books in the NT that bear their names.

Joseph was the foster father of Jesus and must have taught Him and perhaps the other sons the trade as well, because Jesus was called a carpenter.

Here is the record in Mark 6:
1 Then He went out from there and came to His own country, and His disciples followed Him.
² And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished, saying, “Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His hands!
³ Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?”

Yes, I believe Joseph played an importand role in the family, don't you?.