|
Post by bubbles on Mar 2, 2015 12:16:55 GMT -5
If you have Jewish blood it the mothers line that matters.
|
|
|
Post by responding on Mar 2, 2015 12:36:05 GMT -5
If you have Jewish blood it the mothers line that matters. Not in Bible days. The only exception where the mother's line counted is explained in Numbers 27:4 and 36:6.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Mar 2, 2015 16:26:05 GMT -5
If you have Jewish blood it the mothers line that matters. Not in Bible days. The only exception where the mother's line counted is explained in Numbers 27:4 and 36:6.Ive worked with and known a number of Jewish people and I understand I speak the truth.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 2, 2015 17:18:39 GMT -5
It looks to me like Jesus straightened out his Mom in reminding her of who is father is; but, if Jesus was not Joseph's how can ANYONE claim he's from the lineage of David? ?? Was David related to GOD? If God is the fathercof Jesus .... NOONE in the Bible was related to him except from his mother's side. Am I right ? The genealogy in Luke's gospel is from Mary's side - Joseph son of Heli in Luke 3:23 is not the same person as Joseph son of Jacob in Matthew 1:16. You'll notice that BOTH are from the lineage of David.And do you know why they're different?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 2, 2015 17:19:49 GMT -5
If you have Jewish blood it the mothers line that matters. Not in Bible days. The only exception where the mother's line counted is explained in Numbers 27:4 and 36:6.But we're no longer in the Bible days. Bubbles is entirely correct. It is also the law in the state of Israel.
|
|
|
Post by applesandbacon on Mar 3, 2015 14:08:13 GMT -5
Google Steven Anderson and the words "Free Jinger". Better yet, visit his youtube channel. His rants on women, president Obama, jews, even men who pee sitting down cross the line right into hate speech. He is not someone who should be accepted as an authority on anything. He is a "pastor" in the loosest sense of the word. He screeches at a handful of people in an Arizona strip mall every Sunday.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 3, 2015 19:41:14 GMT -5
Do you really think anything that comes out of Liberty University is unbiased? Everything they do is subordinate to their fundamentalist doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Mar 3, 2015 20:20:04 GMT -5
Left school at 14yrs down on the farm we never learned a Shakespearian era language,so my second language was purely to fit in with the pain of thee,thines,thuses,thous,whilst God was listening to prayers that came strate out of Romeo and Juliet.Wasn't I able to get a greater clearer closer to God and what He wanted of me and my service to Him via a 20th century languaged Bible.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 3, 2015 20:47:43 GMT -5
Left school at 14yrs down on the farm we never learned a Shakespearian era language,so my second language was purely to fit in with the pain of thee,thines,thuses,thous,whilst God was listening to prayers that came strate out of Romeo and Juliet.Wasn't I able to get a greater clearer closer to God and what He wanted of me and my service to Him via a 20th century languaged Bible. I know it's a common idea, but I can't imagine that one's level of literacy is inversely proportional to one's ability to know god.
|
|
|
Post by responding on Mar 4, 2015 6:32:38 GMT -5
The genealogy in Luke's gospel is from Mary's side - Joseph son of Heli in Luke 3:23 is not the same person as Joseph son of Jacob in Matthew 1:16. You'll notice that BOTH are from the lineage of David. And do you know why they're different? I think so, in fact it seems very significant to me.
Jesus' only legal and honest claim to be "king of the Jews" is if he were of the royal lineage (as in Matthew 1). But he wasn't. Joseph son of Jacob was NOT his father, as we know. But the neighbors and relatives of his day didn't know this and they expected him to become king. John 6:15 "When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone."
All the scriptures about Jesus as son of David and root of Jesse are fulfilled in Luke's genealogy (descended from Nathan). But there's no grounds here for a claim to the natural throne in Jerusalem.
So do you see the dilemma in this? Jesus had to choose: 1. I'm the son of Joseph and I'll be the king you expect me to be. OR: 2. I'm the Son of God and "my kingdom is not of this world".
Isn't that enough reason for the two genealogies given in the New Testament???
|
|
|
Post by terfly4fun on Mar 4, 2015 10:02:15 GMT -5
I was adopted. My adopted last name is Garrett. My birth last name is Saltsman. Saltsman is GERMAN JEWISH name. I spoke with a Jewish Rabbi who specializes in ancestry and names. He said it is not possible for the name Saltsman to be anything other than German Jewish. Of course I researched it online too. Ok ... now a convert Rabbi ... someone who was Christian and converted to Judaism told me I am not a Jew ... even though my Dad was and all his ancestors. This converted Rabbi told me my mother HAS to be Jewish in order for me to be a Jew. He said the only way I can be a Jew is to be converted ... like he did!!! My Dad's Mom was a Jew! Somebody's Mom was avJew! I mean ... like many of my ancestors Mom's were Jews! Does that count!? Not that I want to be a Jew; I was reared in the truth and consider myself a Christian ... but I still think, by blood, I'm still more of a Jew than that Converted Rabbi!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 4, 2015 11:46:53 GMT -5
This doesn't add up. (1) There were no digits of higher value than "6". (2) The highest 2-digit number available in that numbering system was our "36". (3) The highest 3-digit number in that numbering system was our "216. They're not really sure the term "year" actually meant a 365 day period in the original version of the story. Who knows? The system was sexagesimal - radix 60. They had 59 different symbols for the characters. Still lingers in our own world in circular and time measurements. While it was a positional system there was a lot of ambiguity that was resolved from context. That being said - with three of their 'digits' they could represent an amount of 215,999.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 4, 2015 11:56:36 GMT -5
Not in Bible days. The only exception where the mother's line counted is explained in Numbers 27:4 and 36:6. But we're no longer in the Bible days. Bubbles is entirely correct. It is also the law in the state of Israel. The law? Given the way it is viewed by different congregations of jews it would be difficult to make it a law.
|
|
|
Post by responding on Mar 4, 2015 13:22:25 GMT -5
If you have Jewish blood it the mothers line that matters. All of the genealogies in the OT are "patrolineal" as are the two genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Mark. "Matrolineal descent" was introduced into Judaism after the destruction of Jerusalem and diaspora (dispersing of the Jews) around AD 70.
There were non-Jewish mothers in the lineage of Jesus, but that didn't keep him from being a Jew.
To accept modern Jewish practice in interpreting the Bible is like accepting RC practices like child baptism to explain the NT. Shouldn't Jesus have been baptised as a child to justify that doctrine?
|
|
|
Post by terfly4fun on Mar 4, 2015 15:11:35 GMT -5
How was Jesus a Jew? Wasn't his Daddy GOD ALMIGHTY?
|
|
|
Post by responding on Mar 4, 2015 15:20:06 GMT -5
How was Jesus a Jew? Wasn't his Daddy GOD ALMIGHTY? TOUCHÉ! :-) Jesus mother may have been an exceptional case, Luke 3:23 is perhaps explained by Numbers 27:4 and 36:6.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Mar 4, 2015 17:11:23 GMT -5
If you have Jewish blood it the mothers line that matters. All of the genealogies in the OT are "patrolineal" as are the two genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Mark. "Matrolineal descent" was introduced into Judaism after the destruction of Jerusalem and diaspora (dispersing of the Jews) around AD 70.
There were non-Jewish mothers in the lineage of Jesus, but that didn't keep him from being a Jew.
To accept modern Jewish practice in interpreting the Bible is like accepting RC practices like child baptism to explain the NT. Shouldn't Jesus have been baptised as a child to justify that doctrine?No the doctrine of the RCC wasnt entrenched when Christ was born. Didnt exist.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 4, 2015 18:12:55 GMT -5
I was adopted. My adopted last name is Garrett. My birth last name is Saltsman. Saltsman is GERMAN JEWISH name. I spoke with a Jewish Rabbi who specializes in ancestry and names. He said it is not possible for the name Saltsman to be anything other than German Jewish. Of course I researched it online too. Ok ... now a convert Rabbi ... someone who was Christian and converted to Judaism told me I am not a Jew ... even though my Dad was and all his ancestors. This converted Rabbi told me my mother HAS to be Jewish in order for me to be a Jew. He said the only way I can be a Jew is to be converted ... like he did!!! My Dad's Mom was a Jew! Somebody's Mom was avJew! I mean ... like many of my ancestors Mom's were Jews! Does that count!? Not that I want to be a Jew; I was reared in the truth and consider myself a Christian ... but I still think, by blood, I'm still more of a Jew than that Converted Rabbi! According to your DNA you are as much a Jew as any other Jew. But legally, you do not qualify. Unless you want to move to Israel, or convert to Judaism, that legal status doesn't really mean anything. It's like being an American. Just because one of your parent was born in the USA doesn't necessarily mean you are an American if you weren't born in the USA. There are laws about how half-breeds (for lack of a better term) can be accepted as legal Americans.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 4, 2015 18:15:33 GMT -5
But we're no longer in the Bible days. Bubbles is entirely correct. It is also the law in the state of Israel. The law? Given the way it is viewed by different congregations of jews it would be difficult to make it a law. I wasn't talking about Biblical law, I was referring to the laws of the state of Israel. Americans can qualify for Israeli citizenship through their Jewish mother, but not their Jewish father. But it's not a congregational/religious thing at all, really -- it's been the rule among all Jews for a long long time.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Mar 4, 2015 18:19:33 GMT -5
I don't know if I'm getting too far off the topic here... let me know.. But the early areas of the bible, btwn the creation story, Noah etc, up to Abraham, were probably made up on who knows what documents, if any. I picture the captured Israelite intelligentsia in Babylon, with time on their hands waiting for the King to give them something to do, deciding to write down the history of the world, especially now that they've got access to a wider better view. It must have been kind of exciting because they have access to other scholars and their traditions, and maybe even THE tablets with stories like those of Gilgamesh, and the flood story. They pick and chose, glean, amalgamate, and splice together a likely narrative that fits the facts as they have them, to the best of their knowledge. And now you've got the beginning of the Holy Bible, KJ and the Koran, and Zoroastrianism, and maybe some others too. As long as I'm imagining... I see Noah and the flood story as a guy that didn't live just too far away from the bit of land btwn the ever rising Mediterranean and the future Black Sea, saying hey guys, one of these days, if we get a lot of rain, that sucker is going to come over, and we're going to get flooded big time. I'm going to get ready, and you better too. Aw baloney his neighbors probably said, it's never come over before, why would it now? But remember, Noah had been around for six hundred years by then, so he had probably seen the Mediterranean rise a good 15 feet or more in his lifetime. And with global warming, the ice age accumulations were melting faster than ever. Who knows, maybe there was a trickle coming over by the time God told Noah you better get ready. Now that flood would be one that just might likely be remembered in folklore by everybody, maybe with embellishments like the Trojan war gained by the time it was written down, probably tweaked there in Babylon to fit their present knowledge and historic traditions. One of the problems with the Noah story is that it wouldn't have left all the pre-flood literature for anyone to read. But in any case, the history that is recorded in the OT is all the oral history of the Israelites and Jews that was never committed to writing while they had their own countries. If they'd actually accessed such writings as Gilgamesh the two stories would have been more alike, but scholars have determined that the Bible version of the Great Flood came from 2 other sources. The ancient world abounded with variations of all these stories. On the coast of Wales the sand washed away and revealed a forrest under the sand. They thought that it was the result of the flood in Noahs time. It happened again and they were able to carbon date it back to the ice age.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 4, 2015 18:24:39 GMT -5
One of the problems with the Noah story is that it wouldn't have left all the pre-flood literature for anyone to read. But in any case, the history that is recorded in the OT is all the oral history of the Israelites and Jews that was never committed to writing while they had their own countries. If they'd actually accessed such writings as Gilgamesh the two stories would have been more alike, but scholars have determined that the Bible version of the Great Flood came from 2 other sources. The ancient world abounded with variations of all these stories. On the coast of Wales the sand washed away and revealed a forrest under the sand. They thought that it was the result of the flood in Noahs time. It happened again and they were able to carbon date it back to the ice age. And the flood is coming again. There are two causes for such floods: (1) the rising and falling of the earth's crust, and (2) the freezing up or melting down of the earth's ice caps. They have found cities at the bottom of the Black Sea. They have found sea shells in Nevada -- at an elevation of a mile above sea level and 700 miles inland. You can't plow your garden without turning up seashells. The earth is NOT a stable place -- our lives are just too short to appreciate it.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 4, 2015 18:26:56 GMT -5
This doesn't add up. (1) There were no digits of higher value than "6". (2) The highest 2-digit number available in that numbering system was our "36". (3) The highest 3-digit number in that numbering system was our "216. They're not really sure the term "year" actually meant a 365 day period in the original version of the story. Who knows? The system was sexagesimal - radix 60. They had 59 different symbols for the characters. Still lingers in our own world in circular and time measurements. While it was a positional system there was a lot of ambiguity that was resolved from context. That being said - with three of their 'digits' they could represent an amount of 215,999. Not the system I was referring to -- but could work.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 4, 2015 18:30:07 GMT -5
How was Jesus a Jew? Wasn't his Daddy GOD ALMIGHTY? His mother was a Jewess. But of course, to the Jews God was Jewish too. And that was before the "mother" inheritance rule. It made life a lot easier before DNA -- you always know who the mother is, but the father could be anyone.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 4, 2015 18:37:03 GMT -5
And do you know why they're different? I think so, in fact it seems very significant to me.
Jesus' only legal and honest claim to be "king of the Jews" is if he were of the royal lineage (as in Matthew 1). But he wasn't. Joseph son of Jacob was NOT his father, as we know. But the neighbors and relatives of his day didn't know this and they expected him to become king. John 6:15 "When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone."
All the scriptures about Jesus as son of David and root of Jesse are fulfilled in Luke's genealogy (descended from Nathan). But there's no grounds here for a claim to the natural throne in Jerusalem.
So do you see the dilemma in this? Jesus had to choose: 1. I'm the son of Joseph and I'll be the king you expect me to be. OR: 2. I'm the Son of God and "my kingdom is not of this world".
Isn't that enough reason for the two genealogies given in the New Testament???
Well, it's not all that poetic, really. In ancient Jewish times they calculated important messiahs as arriving every so many generations. That's why some OT messiahs (kings) were left off some of the official genealogies -- to even up the number of generations between the likes of King David and Moses and whoever else they considered cosmos-altering. At the time of Jesus a lot of rabbis were calculating that it was time for another such messiah, and Jesus was a good candidate for the time. If course, Christians who don't understand this have concocted all kinds of religious meanings to the genealogies despite the fact that they're not always that precise. But another consideration for the differences between the Matthew's genealogy and the Lukan genealogy -- Matthew's gospel was written for Jewish believers, and Luke's gospel was written more for Greek believers.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Mar 4, 2015 19:55:20 GMT -5
On the coast of Wales the sand washed away and revealed a forrest under the sand. They thought that it was the result of the flood in Noahs time. It happened again and they were able to carbon date it back to the ice age. And the flood is coming again. There are two causes for such floods: (1) the rising and falling of the earth's crust, and (2) the freezing up or melting down of the earth's ice caps. They have found cities at the bottom of the Black Sea. They have found sea shells in Nevada -- at an elevation of a mile above sea level and 700 miles inland. You can't plow your garden without turning up seashells. The earth is NOT a stable place -- our lives are just too short to appreciate it. The earth. Our home is incredible isnt it. I love our planet. I saw a program last few weeks of an under sea city nr Japan. Massive stone walls cut with presision. The divers looked minute swimming between the structures.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 4, 2015 20:57:08 GMT -5
On the coast of Wales the sand washed away and revealed a forrest under the sand. They thought that it was the result of the flood in Noahs time. It happened again and they were able to carbon date it back to the ice age. And the flood is coming again. There are two causes for such floods: (1) the rising and falling of the earth's crust, and (2) the freezing up or melting down of the earth's ice caps. They have found cities at the bottom of the Black Sea. T hey have found sea shells in Nevada -- at an elevation of a mile above sea level and 700 miles inland. You can't plow your garden without turning up seashells. The earth is NOT a stable place -- our lives are just too short to appreciate it. My step-father's farm was close to the Mississippi River.
The whole hill across from his house was made up of the fossil remains of an ancient water bed full of crinoids. (They were called "Indian beads" by the locals.)
Crinoids dominated the Paleozoic fossil record of echinoderms and shallow marine habitats ...
Here this was a hill now!
You imagine my step-father's consternation at my husband's information that the hill was once under water.
My step-father, who was one of the oldest professing men in that area, probably thought that my husband was either totally mad or an infidel!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 4, 2015 22:15:10 GMT -5
The system was sexagesimal - radix 60. They had 59 different symbols for the characters. Still lingers in our own world in circular and time measurements. While it was a positional system there was a lot of ambiguity that was resolved from context. That being said - with three of their 'digits' they could represent an amount of 215,999. Not the system I was referring to -- but could work. What civilization used a radix of 6 (or 7) system of numbers? I was confused by your post though. If the highest digit was "6" then it would be radix 7 and the highest value represented by 2 digits would be 48. No matter what radix, the highest 2-digit number would not be 36.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 4, 2015 23:39:29 GMT -5
Not the system I was referring to -- but could work. What civilization used a radix of 6 (or 7) system of numbers? I was confused by your post though. If the highest digit was "6" then it would be radix 7 and the highest value represented by 2 digits would be 48. No matter what radix, the highest 2-digit number would not be 36. I don't know now what ethnic group exactly used this system, but I do know it was located in Mesopotamia. Not their digits, but using Arabic numerals they would count 1,2,3,4,5,6,11,12,13,14,15,16,21,22 ...... No zero, of course. But the radix (I'm not a mathematician, thanks for the new term) you mentioned would work very well if one wanted to credit Methusela's age to that one. That is, if you believed it in the first place, but then, that's just me.
|
|