Non-Smartass Religion Question for Believers

[Alexander]

This is a question I may have asked before, but I can't recall if I got an answer or not. Mind you, this is really not intended as a smartass "gotcha" question, but one I'd like a serious answer to if at all possible.

For our Christian posters: How do the various branches of Christianity solve the following conundrum...

I know that according to the NT, Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. He's the Messiah of the Jews (even though the Jews themselves do not recognize Him as such) because He fulfilled the prophesies of the OT, one of which was that the Messiah would be of the House of David. As evidence of this, most of the Gospels have a geniology that links Jesus to David through a series of "begats." This one comes from Matthew, KJV:

[1] The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

[2] Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

[3] And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;

[4] And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;

[5] And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

[6] And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

[7] And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;

[8] And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

[9] And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;

[10] And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;

[11] And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

[12] And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

[13] And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

[14] And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

[15] And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

[16] And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Please take note of line 16. This is the conundrum. According to Matthew, Jesus is related to David through Joseph. Which is fine. Except that according to standard belief Joseph is not Jesus's father. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but Joseph is not supposed to be a blood relative, right? Jesus was sired by God Himself who visited Mary in the form of the Holy Spirit and impregnated her while she was still a virgin. If that is indeed the case, then Joseph is Jesus's "step-father," so to speak. And Jesus is not descended from the House of David. Which means He can't be the Messiah as predicted in the OT, since the Messiah has to be of the House of David. Or....

Jesus IS the son of Joseph, which makes Him the Messiah but also makes Him completely human.

So...Jesus is the Messiah as predicted in the OT and is NOT the Son of God, or He IS the Son of God and is not the Messiah. Can't be both. Hence, my question: How do YOU (or your church) explain this?

Okay, maybe it is a "gotcha" question... But I'd still like an answer...

[gdogus]

I'm not a Christian, but here's one explanation. It's apparently a matter of understanding the distinction between "genealogy" and "paternity" in Mosaic law.

[Dan Gould]

I'm not a Christian, but here's one explanation. It's apparently a matter of understanding the distinction between "genealogy" and "paternity" in Mosaic law.

I knew MC was really important, but I had no idea that Mosaic has its own law.

Now that's a smart-ass answer.

[Chuck Nessa]

I'm not a Christian, but here's one explanation. It's apparently a matter of understanding the distinction between "genealogy" and "paternity" in Mosaic law.

I knew MC was really important, but I had no idea that Mosaic has its own law.

Now that's a smart-ass answer.

Or a dumb-ass answer.

[7/4]

You ain't from around here, are you? Mosaic law is the law of the land here.

[Big Al]

I'm a Lutheran, so I don't believe the King James Version.

Serious answer (maybe) to be sent via PM, to be ignored at your discretion.

[Dan Gould]

I'm not a Christian, but here's one explanation. It's apparently a matter of understanding the distinction between "genealogy" and "paternity" in Mosaic law.

I knew MC was really important, but I had no idea that Mosaic has its own law.

Now that's a smart-ass answer.

Or a dumb-ass answer.

Either way, I knew "ass" was part of it.

[Chuck Nessa]

I'm not a Christian, but here's one explanation. It's apparently a matter of understanding the distinction between "genealogy" and "paternity" in Mosaic law.

I knew MC was really important, but I had no idea that Mosaic has its own law.

Now that's a smart-ass answer.

Or a dumb-ass answer.

Either way, I knew "ass" was part of it.

Long as you know your station.

[jazzbo]

IIFC, descent is from the MOTHER in this culture and time (and I believe even now among the Jewish). So it is descent from Mary that traces Jesus the son of Joseph to David.

Edited June 8, 2006 by jazzbo

[JSngry]

So...Jesus is the Messiah as predicted in the OT and is NOT the Son of God, or He IS the Son of God and is not the Messiah. Can't be both. Hence, my question: How do YOU (or your church) explain this?

Lon's got the maternal geneology angle right, but that still leaves the issue of paternity wide open.

My church(es) - I've been both Lutheran & Methodist in my church-belonging life - don't really deal with it, which is why I'm kinda like yeah, ok, whatever when i come to that kind of trip.

The answer I formulated for myself a long time aqo is a simple one - we're all children of god. Whether you regard "god" as a specific being or a general abstract representation of the unifying life-force that runs throughout creation, we all come from it. Therefore, yeah, Jesus is the son of god. But so am I, and so are you.

The Biblical Jesus came into a specific geo-political dynamic, and his story as related in the Bible is definitely told through that lens. The "messiah" thing is all about that. People were waiting at the time, people were waiting in the aftermath, ande some people are still waiting. And these are the people who told (and still tell) the story. Jesus came, dropped some science, and then split. He didn't leave any memoirs. So, really, the NT is an interpretation, not a history. I take it as such, even though that's sort of a "non-traditional" form of Christianity. Oh well...

[Chuck Nessa]

What Jim said.

My background is similar and I am not egotistical enough to believe humans are the "end all". Some other shit is going on and I have enjoyed the ride so far and am grateful. I hope I have not offended the "big guy" with the conduct of my life.

[kenny weir]

Interesting and - IMO - intelliegent answers you two. Funny thing is, to "real" Christians I'm sure all that marks you both as heathen unbelievers of a real bad kind.

[Alexander]

IIFC, descent is from the MOTHER in this culture and time (and I believe even now among the Jewish). So it is descent from Mary that traces Jesus the son of Joseph to David.

But read the "begats" above! The line described is definitely paternal. If Matthew is to be believed, it is through Joseph, not Mary, that Jesus claims descent from David.

[JSngry]

Interesting and - IMO - intelliegent answers you two. Funny thing is, to "real" Christians I'm sure all that marks you both as heathen unbelievers of a real bad kind.

Well, yeah, sure, some, but....

You'd be surprised how many "real" Christians have reached similar conclusions. And there's suggestion that many early Christians were of a similar bent. So it's not a new notion by any means. It's just one that was not codified during the corporate takeover back in the day. Again, oh well...

I'm a bit rusty on this, but I believe that there's two geneologies of Jesus in the Bible, and there are subtle discrepancies between the two. There's a possibility that this is related to some kind of conflict within the Essene community. The role the Essenes played in the life of Jesus is certainly an unprovable point of contention in some circles, but the writings of Barbara Theiring (which I've recommended to Alexander before) are certainly worthy of review and consideration regardless of the final conclusion one reaches after same.

[JSngry]

If Matthew is to be believed, it is through Joseph, not Mary, that Jesus claims descent from David.

The "claims" of Jesus about himself, as opposed to his teachings about the nature of the spiritual life, are few and far between, actually. Is Jesus himself ever quoted in the Bible as making such a claim?

Edited June 8, 2006 by JSngry

[Chuck Nessa]

'twould be interesting if Matthew entered the conversation.

[kenny weir]

Interesting and - IMO - intelliegent answers you two. Funny thing is, to "real" Christians I'm sure all that marks you both as heathen unbelievers of a real bad kind.

Well, yeah, sure, some, but.... You'd be surprised how many "real" Christians have reached similar conclusions. And there's suggestion that many early Christians were of a similar bent.

I meant the ones who righteously believe their definition is the right and only one, that narrow focus actually being - as you imply - a relatively recent one.

Edited June 8, 2006 by kenny weir

[jazzbo]

that's a good one Chuck.

I don't know. . . . Jesus talked about "Father," and he was including us in that immediate family, as having the same father.

So the heck with the house of David, it's the house of the Father that he claims is important.

I don't believe he's the only way, I don't believe necessarily that he was more divine than you or I.

I do believe he was one helluva teacher who remains relevant today and probably always will remain relevant in a world of humans.

Edited June 8, 2006 by jazzbo

[Alexander]

I looked into the link gdogus posted and I read it with interest. However, if we look to Luke for evidence of the "it was really Mary who was descended from David" explanation, what are we to make of this?

Luke.2

[1] And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

[2] (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

[3] And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

[4] And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

[5] To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

So Luke states with great confidence that it was Joseph who was related to David, not Mary.

Moreover, at least in the KJV, Luke's geneology is also clearly patrilineal:

[23] And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

[24] Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

[25] Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

[26] Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

[27] Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

[28] Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

[29] Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

[30] Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

[31] Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

[32] Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,

[33] Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,

[34] Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,

[35] Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,

[36] Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

[37] Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

[38] Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

I don't see any Mary in there, do you? Then, of course, the "mother" explanation is designed to explain the fact that Luke's geneology bears virtually no resemblance to Matthew's. But both lines seem to trace Jesus's bloodline through the father, not the mother (also, all of the names here are male).

As to the "Mosaic Law" explanation...I don't know. You might have a point there. The OT prophesies only say that the Messiah will be from the "House of David." Doesn't say how the Messiah gets into that house, does it? So you could get around it that way, I suppose.

As to the question of who "claims" what, it is true that Jesus doesn't go around saying that he's the Messiah because he's related to David. But since the authors of the Gospels were clearly TRYING to fob Jesus off as the Jewish Messiah, it was obviously very important to THEM that Jesus fit the profile exactly. I guess it seems to me that "the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy," as the author of the Downing Street memo might put it.

Edited June 8, 2006 by Alexander

[Big Al]

Jesus IS the son of Joseph, which makes Him the Messiah but also makes Him completely human.

So...Jesus is the Messiah as predicted in the OT and is NOT the Son of God, or He IS the Son of God and is not the Messiah. Can't be both.

Probably gonna get hammered for this, but oh well.....

Actually He can and (I believe) He is. Fully God and fully man. Joseph may not be his blood father, but then I can't really see Jesus calling God "daddy" either.

Probably not gonna be a satisfactory answer, but my answer has always been simply, faith. Which is what I usually fall back on when it comes to things I cannot explain.

But then, I also don't believe that everything requires explanation. Sometimes what it is is what it is. What it will be will eventually be explained. I hope.

When it comes right down to it, how can Christians believe in a Messiah who comes from that lineage? Have you seen that cast of "characters:"

Abraham: knocked up his maidservant Hagar then sent her away and disowned his son

Isaac: had all the backbone of a jellyfish

Jacob: deceived his brother out of his birthright and his father into giving him Esau's blessing

And that's the foundation of my faith!

Then you got that wonderful family man David, whose only crime was offing his friend so he could have sex with his wife.

Then all the Jehosaphats and Jehoshepheths who all did "what was evil in the sight of the Lord" and you've got all the makings of a "Springer BC."

Honestly, if all the so-called "Christian" folks in the world ever TRULY studied the genealogy of Jesus, Alex, I daresay you might have a lot more company on your side.

Now for a funny: what's the difference between an Atheist and a Lutheran? One has definite opinions on what he/she believes about God. The other makes an effort to go to church every now and then.

[kenny weir]

I guess it seems to me that "the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy," as the author of the Downing Street memo might put it.

That there's a notion with which Christianity power brokers have always been on working terms.

[rostasi]

Well, all of this "begating" business is ages old

and variations show up in various spiritual texts and is not

meant to be taken literally anyway. They are

representations of our human and spiritual inclusiveness.

The same type of thing shows up in various sutras for instance.

The Samantabhadra Sutra, the Daihokobutsu Kegon Sutra,

the Lotus Sutra, the Diamond Sutra, et al.

began with the words, "Thus I have heard"

so as not to claim unnatural specifics.

Rod

Edited June 8, 2006 by rostasi

[Matthew]

One simple explaination for the original question is this: In the Jewish society of Jesus' time, a man could declare a child as his son, whether there was a blood relationship or not. To have Jesus be called "Son of Joseph" means that Joseph accepted Jesus as his son even though he was not the physical father of Jesus. So, Jesus is truly "Son of Joseph" by Joseph declaring himself the earthly father of Jesus (an adoption of sorts), and Jesus can be Son of God through the power of the Holy Spirit. To answer yes to one is not to exclude the other reality.

edit for spelling

Edited June 8, 2006 by Matthew

[7/4]

You're lettin' the air outta his tires.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Religion has always just been another way of carrying on politics, so you do what you have to do to get your message over. And sometimes your message has a few holes in it. But it doesn't matter if it isn't immediately obvious that it's leaky.

MG