I do have a sense of humor, Occam (at least I think I do). But lately I have been feeling more like Pierrot than Harlequin. I think I am working a little too much…
I think this is the end of the road for me, Kirk. . . . What I didn’t understand was how could a person, you and Paul in this case, accept Jesus being from the house of David and simultaneously see him as the son of God. Since there is a very little evidence in the Bible (none in my opinion) that Mary was the descendant of David, and seeing that Matthew and Luke clearly tried to make the link between Jesus and David through Joseph, I now understand that “descendant doesn’t necessarily signify biological descendant” is a battle I can’t win.
Well, I’m still confused, so i’m not finished with you!
Let’s forget the Marian connection, since your real question is more about Luke than about all the possibilities - though how I was supposed to ken that is a bit beyond me. That’s as good a reason as any for you to stick around - your ‘real question isn’t quite your original question, which is about possibility, and doesn’t mention Luke or Mark, and you needed time to actually spit out that real question.
So all my evidence boils down to the first piece i gave. You’re just being very uncharitable when you claim Luke has a blatant contradction when he both gives Jesus a divine origin, and wants to connect Jesus with the house of David through Joseph. Well, one can either make Luke dance to a single definition of ‘descendent’ - and thus the weird contradiction - or accept his contemporaries’ definition, which makes no contradiction. If you were already looking to make Luke look a fool, why, you’ll naturally want to pick the hypothesis that Luke is contradicting himself in his own rather small book.
Sure - there’s nothing to force you to accept Luke isn’t being contradictory after all. But then arguing against people becomes much too easy> For, most arguments in print are incomplete arguments, and lots of words are ambiguous; and by a principle of anti-charity you can substitute the lamest linking propositions, and thus ‘show’ that he’s reasoning crazy. For example, for the ambiguous word ‘descendent’ you can easily substitute the definition that just must make the argument batty. My reply can only be that you oughtn’t to make that move here. We have a logical problem - a word-dispute - not an empirical one, in your original question.
Once Doug tried to persuade me that von Däniken was a racist, at other time Teresa implicitly accused me of being a sexist when I said that women are more qualified than men to make better daycare workers.
No; i don’t think you make a fool of yourself by sticking to something you in good conscience believe. (heh heh, it’s more likely you were a fool and then wrote something down - just kidding.)
The principle of charity is not a commonly discussed part of critical thinking. So it’s not surprising we’re at an impass here. IMHO, you also have much more important questions on your mind, and their unspoken urgency is clouding the really pretty narrow issue about the possible relations in Luke among God, Joseph, Mary and Jesus.
Hey, and btw - i haven’t proved you wrong at all! you had a question, and I provided an answer. You just are having trouble understanding my answer. That’s not foolish, just normal. I’m having trouble kenning your unspoken questions, and that’s probably why we’ve spent so much time on this little point.
And yet even today Jewish ancestry is traced through the mother. That’s treating a woman much more than ‘baggage or equipment.’ Btw, the technical term you’re looking for is ‘chattel’: women were often, though not completely, treated like chattel - chattel includes the servants, who are also members of the House of X. (They just aren’t the members who make the House of X the actual House of X.)
As far as the bible is concerned, as in, as far as the word of the almighy god, Joseph is the decendant of David not mary (it’s all in Matthew I think), and Jesus’ ancestery has been ignoringly and obliviously linked to David through Joseph, this while at the same time, claims that Jesus has been conceived of something else other than a generic sperm continue to be made. There is a clearly a problem here. Women continue to be treated like bags of tomatoes in many communities to this day, so to pretend that women had any relevance back then other than that of harboring fetoes to term and shutting up is ludicrious.
The ‘here’ is for you to prove.
If a legitimacy of child is in question now a days, what would we have to do to clear it? do a paternity/maternity test. Unless Jesus is above this rule, the same applies to him.
You’ll need to know something about bibllical scholarship and something about common cultural practices of the ancient world. I’m not an expert, just a student of philosophy of the premoderns. I can only claim here that that’s not the impression I get from my own reading and some experience among traditional peoples. For an easily accessed example, take the Roman Emperors of about 100AD, who adopted someone as their son, who would be Emperor upon the ‘father’s’ death. It’s just a commonplace of the ancient world.
There just are more uses of ‘descendent’ in the ancient world than you’re interested in, is all.
no, we’re talking about the almighty god in person here. If he is the almighty, then why did he need to be adopted? and again, adopted is integrated into, it is not dna duplicated, and that’s what the bible says Jesus is, it doesn’t say he is adopted into the house of david, it isn’t remotely honest enough to go that far, it simply implies that he is blood decendant.
Well, yes, but also a descendent is a descendent to premodern and traditional folk, whether by adoption or blood. Come to think of it, a premodern family or royal house can also *reject* or throw out a person from the family, and that person *ceases* to be a descendent except in the ‘mere’ fact that he’s got the same DNA or ‘blood’.
that is not what we are talking about here.
This concentration on biological blood relation and DNA is an artefact of the 19th century, and was often connected to racist interests. So careful.
If DNA is connected to 19th century artefact then so is the bible and its chatter to the the first, is this fair? Beside, god is outside of the time pouch, why should this be of any concern to him? He is not time bound as far as we know.
Furthermore, recall ‘blood brothers’ as a kid? There the two people make themselves of ‘one blood’ by actually mingling their blood. I’ve seen this myself in one traditional people. There’s multiple ways to make someone akin to you. Maybe if you used ‘kin’ rather than ‘descendent’, which obviously you are restricting to the biological kind.
you are doing anything to go around the fact that if Jesus is indeed “holy spirit” conceived, he cannot at the same time be biologically tied to Joseph, since that’s what the word decendant means, it means that one is someone’s offspring. This is a major discrepancy that is simply irreconcilable. The bible (along with the others) is good at this, it throws smoke at people and demand that they don’t dare asking questions about it and contest it, and when they do, it comes up with all those low grade loopholes to explain itself and that doesn’t work.
Lastly, the phrase is precisely ‘of’ the House of David, not ‘is the biological descendant of’ the House of David. “Of” is a stretchy word, no?
oh, yeah, sure whatever, they knew nothing about biology back then, did you know that? as much as many believers know nothing about the contradictions and discrepancies that plague the bible. They been programmed like zambies to believe what they are told and not question because questioning will earn them hell and that is beautiful brilliant formula designed to breed the perfect cattle.
I think you’re making heavier weather out of this than it really is. The strongest claim you can plausibly make is that Jesus isn’t a biological descendent of the House of David. To this the ancient world would probably say to you ‘So what? We don’t care; Jesus was made a member of the House of David by being accepted by Joseph no matter his biological father, and that’s good enough to us.’
Kirk
if the ancient world would say that, we have our own say based on what we know now. It’s 2 ways street.
Daisy: I am no expert on Jewish law, but I know the very conservative Orthodox Jews in NYC consider only those born of a Jewish woman to truly be one of the chosen. I think that interpretation is based on ancient Jewish traditions so it would seem women had some value and legal status back then.
To that I’d say I wish since I am woman myself. ok, if women had some value back then, why the case of the adultress was exclusively made against her and not against the guy she supposedly commited adultery with? to be an adulterer, one has to do it being married or with a married person or both have to be married, yet in that scene the male adulterer is nowhere to be seen and no one was looking for him or asking where he was. The whole energy was focused on this poor woman. According to the book, if it wasn’t for jesus, they’d berry her alive. That’s giving women value, to take that a step further, I’d say imagine if indeed she commited adultery and as result got pregnant and gave birth, is her offspring supposed to be the chosen since the father is un-identified? based on the back then mentality, I personally doubt it.
...and if Mary really have been done by some weird spook out there, if an archangel appeared to her or to any other human in this planet during the course of our human history, what is stopping them from for example appearing to guys like Richard Dawkins or James Randi, etc.? why can’t god take the form of a man (as he presumably did with Jesus), prove Randi his divinity, get the million and give it to a church that would use it to help some that need help, since god is all good, love and all that chatcha? what do they have to hide? both Dawkins and Randi are extremely honest and honorable to say the very least. If god is real, loves his children and wants them to go to heaven, why isn’t he showing up today? he isn’t because he doesn’t exist to be able to show up. And if he isn’t real today, he wasn’t either in mary’s days. So the entire question of Jesus and who had him is completely irrelevant.
Daisy, I didn’t mean to imply women were equals, just that they had some value. Women had different values in different ancient societies. If I’m not mistaken, they were considered akin to property in the semitic world at this time. Not a very high status-- probably pretty similar to the status of women under the Taliban, but better than nothing I suppose (spoken like a man?)-- not much. Roman women did quite well for the time. they could not vote or hold office but they could own property and get divorced. They had a lot of social and legal freedom comparatively.
Actually, if you think about it, Jesus may have been the first feminist. He had women as disciples and preachers. In fact, arguably the most important message: his ressurection was first revealed to some of his female disciples. I’ve always found it odd that the Catholic Church would not allow female priests even though Jesus did.
[T]he only meaning decendant has here is biological.
With respect, that’s asserted, not argued for. And it’s only fair to point out that no-one else here has given a good argument to accept that definition alone.
If you insist, of course you can in your own mind make the people around the time of Christ mean “biological, in the male line’ whenever they use the word ‘descendent.’ But that seems grossly irrational given what we know of the ancient world. Being adopted just makes someone a member of the house of David. Being born into the house of david also makes you a member. There’s just more than one way in their minds. To claim otherwise and then judge ancient texts is logically perverse, and historically anachronistic.
Really, you are pushing in the wrong place. This just isn’t a real issue. All this can be as I’ve said it and still Jesus wouldn’t be the Messiah, or the real Son of God.
If Jesus’s DNA merely reflected the DNA of Mary, he would had looked just like her, he would had been a woman. What does God’s DNA look like, Kirk?
Hey this is an interesting point… Thanks George…
There’s a very simple answer, which you won’t like. (1) Yes, it’s true: insofar as Jesus would be a normal human being, he’d have a complete set of DNA, and as a normal healthy male human being he’d have had an XY gene configuration, etc. etc. Ditto for his eye-color, the lengths of his fingertips - all the little things that are expressions of DNA under environmental influence. (2) But none of this is very relevant. All the consequences of a miracle don’t of themselves make the miracle more or less miraculous. At worst, you can attempt to catch a virgin-birth believer into a rather sophistic contradiction - like this frappe about being David’s ‘descendent’ or not.
Ultimately, if there’s a God, it’s highly implausible that He is related to any of His creations by an efficient causal power. YOu might as well ask ‘how could God make the DNA of the first organism?’ as ask about Jesus’ DNA.
Who, in your opinion, was Jesus’s biological father?
I believe (provisionally) in a virgin birth. Therefore, Jesus had no biological father. God is not a biological being, and His causal power is not mechanical (’efficient’) causal power. “God is not related to His stars by an efficient-causal power” says one theologian/astronomer around 1600AD, and likewise to His creatures.
Daisy, I didn’t mean to imply women were equals, just that they had some value. Women had different values in different ancient societies. If I’m not mistaken, they were considered akin to property in the semitic world at this time. Not a very high status-- probably pretty similar to the status of women under the Taliban, but better than nothing I suppose (spoken like a man?)-- not much. Roman women did quite well for the time. they could not vote or hold office but they could own property and get divorced. They had a lot of social and legal freedom comparatively.
Actually, if you think about it, Jesus may have been the first feminist. He had women as disciples and preachers. In fact, arguably the most important message: his ressurection was first revealed to some of his female disciples. I’ve always found it odd that the Catholic Church would not allow female priests even though Jesus did.
as far as value, farm animals has value back then, in a way more than women. I am not the one that’s being mean here though it may appear to be the case but rather the facts. As Sam Harris said in his “letter to christian nation”, why can’t we be good without being dellusional?
probably pretty similar to the status of women under the Taliban, but better than nothing I suppose (spoken like a man?)--
you’d make a good taliban citizen . Brace yourself.
Kirk,
I am wondering why you carefully ignored what I said to only pick this segement. ignoring an answer neither assert or argue anything as you put it.
(off topic) ::I’ve posted one more question for you at the “ask a Christian” thread, I just want to taste your input if you could please comment, thank you .
inthegobi - 22 March 2008 08:30 AM
Hi Daisy:
I’ll pick one point to reply to.
Daisy - 19 March 2008 10:57 AM
[T]he only meaning decendant has here is biological.
With respect, that’s asserted, not argued for. And it’s only fair to point out that no-one else here has given a good argument to accept that definition alone.
If you insist, of course you can in your own mind make the people around the time of Christ mean “biological, in the male line’ whenever they use the word ‘descendent.’ But that seems grossly irrational given what we know of the ancient world.
we are not talking about the people of ancient world as much as we are discussing Jesus biological origin. Biology is a fact not a myth.
Being adopted just makes someone a member of the house of David. Being born into the house of david also makes you a member. There’s just more than one way in their minds. To claim otherwise and then judge ancient texts is logically perverse, and historically anachronistic.
what elevates ancient texts above judging? after all, all the ancient texts do is judge. did you ever read the torah? every other sentence in it is “must be put to death”. Isn’t that lot worse than judging?
Really, you are pushing in the wrong place. This just isn’t a real issue. All this can be as I’ve said it and still Jesus wouldn’t be the Messiah, or the real Son of God.
Kirk
I am not pushing in the wrong place, you are the one that’s running from the abvious. ...and why do you need a messiah to begin with? you seem like a nice decent guy, as such you should be able to do ok without the directives of anyone.
If Jesus’s DNA merely reflected the DNA of Mary, he would had looked just like her, he would had been a woman. What does God’s DNA look like, Kirk?
Hey this is an interesting point… Thanks George…
There’s a very simple answer, which you won’t like. (1) Yes, it’s true: insofar as Jesus would be a normal human being, he’d have a complete set of DNA, and as a normal healthy male human being he’d have had an XY gene configuration, etc. etc. Ditto for his eye-color, the lengths of his fingertips - all the little things that are expressions of DNA under environmental influence. (2) But none of this is very relevant. All the consequences of a miracle don’t of themselves make the miracle more or less miraculous. At worst, you can attempt to catch a virgin-birth believer into a rather sophistic contradiction - like this frappe about being David’s ‘descendent’ or not.
Ultimately, if there’s a God, it’s highly implausible that He is related to any of His creations by an efficient causal power. YOu might as well ask ‘how could God make the DNA of the first organism?’ as ask about Jesus’ DNA.
Kirk
Seems relevant to me… it makes the ‘miracle’ sound more like fiction, doesn’t it—
One thing I have noticed that no one has mentioned is that there are two geneologies and both are Joseph’s, yet they are both different. One even has four women of ill-repute.
But both do claim that he’s of that house, and both are anchored in the same person, Joseph. Just as a hstorical document, we can say with a little more confidence that Jesus was considered the ‘son’ of a man really named Joseph (in whatever relevant way). We have doubt that either of the geneologies are true in all parts - maybe there’s direct contradictions, maybe they are each incomplete and emphasize different generations, etc.
The inclusion of ‘embarrassing’ or minor or irrelevant events might well confirm the general veracity of an account - especially if no particular motive for doing so other than veracity is known. Paley - the man with the watch on the beach argument for claiming the world is designed - was generally interested in evaluating historical documents like the Gospels. He originated the idea that accounts that have the same gist but differ only in details is good evidence the event occurred roughly as recorded in both accounts. (If they were too close in wording and detail you could reasonably argue that one copied from the other or both had a single source; if they are wildly different we might well doubt the two accounts are based in any eye-witness reporting.)
I’m not making a point of ignoring your questions. I am picking and choosing, however - for many reasons. There’s only one reason to answer a question - because it’s a good one and one has the answer; there’s an indefinite number of reasons one fails to answer a question. Please don’t take my silence the wrong way. But go ahead and insist too.
Daisy - 21 March 2008 10:36 AM
. . . if Mary really have been done by some weird spook out there, if an archangel appeared to her or to any other human in this planet during the course of our human history, what is stopping them from for example appearing to guys like Richard Dawkins or James Randi, etc.? why can’t god take the form of a man (as he presumably did with Jesus), prove Randi his divinity, get the million and give it to a church that would use it to help some that need help, since god is all good, love and all that chatcha? what do they have to hide? both Dawkins and Randi are extremely honest and honorable to say the very least. If god is real, loves his children and wants them to go to heaven, why isn’t he showing up today? he isn’t because he doesn’t exist to be able to show up. And if he isn’t real today, he wasn’t either in mary’s days. So the entire question of Jesus and who had him is completely irrelevant.
Daisy, be fair. This isn’t a question. It’s a series of rhetorical questions - statements, couched as questions. The rhetorical questions amount to ‘Here’s my evidence God Himself is a crazy and impossible notion.’ The explanation for the craziness you attribute to the religious is ‘because he doesn’t exist.’ And then you draw another conclusion from that: ‘and that makes the whole issue of Jesus’ ancestry irrelevant’
So what’s your question? It seems to me you already have answers that satisfy you so much, you beat me over the head with them by stating them like a TV pundit. It’s cleverly uninterested in any real answers a religious man could give you. You don’t really want to talk this way, do you? The Internet’s many bloggers encourages this.
Sometimes i fail to answer a question because there’s nothing to answer, or too much. And that may well be a good answer to why God has failed to show Himself to Dawkins. He already has a deep fund of his own opinions, buttressed fast with his own arguments. It may well take centuries - millenia - for Dawkins to realize he’s stumbled across God. Opinions among Christians are divided as to whether we get that time after all.
I think I am working a little too much…
. Brace yourself.
.
