-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
haalmah harah: "a young woman is pregnant"
- Thread starter gnostic
- Start date
sincerly
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Sleeppy
4) Mary had a father. He and his fathers were of David; of Judah. Mary was married to Joseph, of David; of Judah. Their son, like Joseph, was of Judah.
Hi Mike, Right, the Scriptural writings are clear that the 12 "tribes" were designated by the names of the 12 sons of Jacob. There was not a "Dinah tribe".(neither are we told of any other daughters).
At the time of these five "daughters" inquiring concerning their inheritance, the "tribes" had not crossed over to began to process of inhabiting the land. And Yes, GOD said, not only, were they entitled to an inheritance, but gave other criteria which would be used in the Jubilee process of returning to the land.(As seen in the case of Naomi.---and Ruth was Accepted into that Tribe by being the wife of a son and by more importantly---Making the CREATOR GOD her GOD .
The daughters did get the inheritance, because they were "siblings"/children of their father.
Originally Posted by Sleeppy
4) Mary had a father. He and his fathers were of David; of Judah. Mary was married to Joseph, of David; of Judah. Their son, like Joseph, was of Judah.
Mike, there was no "tribal general population"---just the Twelve, as named. That "mixed multitude" who stood with "all the assembled" at the foot of Mt Sinai were a part of whichever "tribe" they "sojourned"---and were subject to the same instructions/laws heard by that assemblage or given by Moses from GOD.
Mike, While Mary was espoused to Joseph and he took her to wife prior to the birth of Jesus, Mary and the Child were then of Joseph's "tribe".
Jesus's actual father(as proclaimed by the Angel to Mary and by an Angel to Joseph in a dream) was the Holy Spirit of GOD.
"irrelevant"? Yes, in the sense, that Jesus was the "Son of GOD". He wasn't born by the seed of man, but by the "seed of the woman" and of the "almah/virgin" who called HIS Name "Immanuel"/GOD with us. Just as was prophesied those thousands of years ago.
Also, Jesus, who was sent by GOD and taught and performed those acts HE did under the direction of GOD was free to choose the "tribe" to which He should belong----with your assumption.
4) Mary had a father. He and his fathers were of David; of Judah. Mary was married to Joseph, of David; of Judah. Their son, like Joseph, was of Judah.
Hi Mike, Right, the Scriptural writings are clear that the 12 "tribes" were designated by the names of the 12 sons of Jacob. There was not a "Dinah tribe".(neither are we told of any other daughters).
At the time of these five "daughters" inquiring concerning their inheritance, the "tribes" had not crossed over to began to process of inhabiting the land. And Yes, GOD said, not only, were they entitled to an inheritance, but gave other criteria which would be used in the Jubilee process of returning to the land.(As seen in the case of Naomi.---and Ruth was Accepted into that Tribe by being the wife of a son and by more importantly---Making the CREATOR GOD her GOD .
The daughters did get the inheritance, because they were "siblings"/children of their father.
Originally Posted by Sleeppy
4) Mary had a father. He and his fathers were of David; of Judah. Mary was married to Joseph, of David; of Judah. Their son, like Joseph, was of Judah.
Mike, there was no "tribal general population"---just the Twelve, as named. That "mixed multitude" who stood with "all the assembled" at the foot of Mt Sinai were a part of whichever "tribe" they "sojourned"---and were subject to the same instructions/laws heard by that assemblage or given by Moses from GOD.
Mike, While Mary was espoused to Joseph and he took her to wife prior to the birth of Jesus, Mary and the Child were then of Joseph's "tribe".
Jesus's actual father(as proclaimed by the Angel to Mary and by an Angel to Joseph in a dream) was the Holy Spirit of GOD.
"irrelevant"? Yes, in the sense, that Jesus was the "Son of GOD". He wasn't born by the seed of man, but by the "seed of the woman" and of the "almah/virgin" who called HIS Name "Immanuel"/GOD with us. Just as was prophesied those thousands of years ago.
Also, Jesus, who was sent by GOD and taught and performed those acts HE did under the direction of GOD was free to choose the "tribe" to which He should belong----with your assumption.
sincerly
Well-Known Member
Hi Mike, "Self claim"??? Not by any stretch of the imagination. They rejected Jesus because it was prophesied they would. Jesus taught in the temple and everywhere the truths of the WORD of GOD given by Prophets and written, but the people only listened to the "written writings of the scribes and Rabbis"("traditions and commandments written by men) rather than to writings of the prophets for their correction.
""And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me".
Dan.9:24, "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy".
John 1:45, "Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph"
People were looking for HIM. The rejection was because HE was correcting their corruptive practices and Jesus wasn't interested in overthrowing the Roman bondage.
And those things included all the false gods which the Israelites repeatedly were guilty of setting up altars and high places to worship".
If Jesus was false, then Why did they have to resort to fase witnesses to convict in their courts prior to taking Jesus to Pilate? Also. there were multiple times the Jewish leaders had tried to kill Jesus before Jesus acknowledged that the time had come for the Crucifixion(as per scriptures and ritual events).(HE was the prophesied---(symbolic)Passover Lamb.)
However, there would be no NT without the OT being the foundation.
All are free to choose and be witness to what is pleasing to them.
sincerly
Well-Known Member
Hi Gnostic. However, Mary's marriage to Joseph placed her and the yet to be born Jesus in the linage of Joseph.
John 6:41-42, "The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?"
Levite
Higher and Higher
OK, so if he is, in fact, Joseph's son, then he can't be the "son of God" (he can't be that anyway, since we don't believe that God reproduces, much less impregnates human women, but even so...). So if he actually is from the tribe of Judah, then he's definitely not the "son of God." But he can't be both. Mary's tribal affiliation has absolutely no bearing on her children's affiliation. That is simply not how tribal affiliation is counted.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
What does Psalm 82:6-8 say? And what does it mean to you?
Except ...
וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה וַיִּקְחוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ
dantech
Well-Known Member
Except ...וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה וַיִּקְחוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ
I've noticed recently that you often quote the verses in the original language rather than using translations. I applaud you for that. :clap
Levite
Higher and Higher
Sure, but if you want to take that at the most syntactically pshat level-- and by extension every other mention of אלהים as entirely literal-- then sure, sons of gods all over the place: Jesus could be the son of any number of gods if there really were all those gods, and we might as well junk the last couple of thousand years of Jewish theology-- to say nothing of the related theologies that came from Jewish monotheism.
But if we presume that אלהים is God qua God, then you know that verse must be idiomatic or metaphorical of something else, as many of our Rabbis and commentators indicate that it is figuratively used here to convey mightiness or great stature, rather than actually being gods. Which leaves us back where we started with Jesus not being a literal son of God....
sincerly
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by sincerly
Hi Gnostic. However, Mary's marriage to Joseph placed her and the yet to be born Jesus in the linage of Joseph.
John 6:41-42, "The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?"
Hi Levite, Even though the murmuring Jews thought that Jesus was indeed the son of Joseph, the context of the Scriptures tell a different Father. ONE Not of the human family.
From Abraham, one sees and understands that with GOD ALL things are possible---And the Scriptures testify to many of those acts including this one.
NO! Joseph didn't impregnate Mary nor did any of the human Beings by both their testimonies.
Since GOD spoke and it was done, a physical act did not have to take place.
Levite, GOD isn't limited by what ""we don't believe". That "not believing" is why the "rejection" came about in the first place. John the Baptist testified that Jesus was the ONE who was and did come and that for the salvation of the world. He was, also, prophesied to be the fore-runner in preparing the way for the Saviour---which he did.
You failed to address the marriage reason for Mary was considered in the linage of Joseph. or the addition of non-Jewish persons into the various tribes. There was no non-Jew "tribes". GOD wasn't a respecter of persons.
Hi Gnostic. However, Mary's marriage to Joseph placed her and the yet to be born Jesus in the linage of Joseph.
John 6:41-42, "The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?"
Hi Levite, Even though the murmuring Jews thought that Jesus was indeed the son of Joseph, the context of the Scriptures tell a different Father. ONE Not of the human family.
From Abraham, one sees and understands that with GOD ALL things are possible---And the Scriptures testify to many of those acts including this one.
NO! Joseph didn't impregnate Mary nor did any of the human Beings by both their testimonies.
Since GOD spoke and it was done, a physical act did not have to take place.
Levite, GOD isn't limited by what ""we don't believe". That "not believing" is why the "rejection" came about in the first place. John the Baptist testified that Jesus was the ONE who was and did come and that for the salvation of the world. He was, also, prophesied to be the fore-runner in preparing the way for the Saviour---which he did.
You failed to address the marriage reason for Mary was considered in the linage of Joseph. or the addition of non-Jewish persons into the various tribes. There was no non-Jew "tribes". GOD wasn't a respecter of persons.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
How do you interpret Isaiah 9:6?
Levite
Higher and Higher
It says:
א*ני אמרתי אלהים אתם ובני עליון כלכם׃ אכן כאדם תמותון וכאחד השרים תפלו׃ קומה אלהים שפטה הארץ כי אתה תנחל בכל הגוים׃
And as for meaning, I am in agreement with commentators like Radak (Rabbi David Kimhi) and Ibn Ezra, who clarify that in this verse, as with many other verses, the word elohim does not mean "God" or "gods," but rather signifies something along the lines of "chieftains" or "judges" (in the sense of a leader, not a jurist), and such individuals may seem like angels. But they are only human, and will die and err. God alone is worthy of ruling the earth, as all nations are His (since, obviously, He created everything).
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
So we only seem like Elohim? We aren't actually sons of the Most High, in this interpretation?
I'm also interested in your rendering and interpretation of Isaiah 9:6.
Levite
Higher and Higher
Hasn't happened yet-- the messiah hasn't come yet. If indeed it is a messianic prophecy-- not all our rabbis are in agreement that it is so. Some say it refers only to a possibility that might have been-- had we be granted a full redemption from the Babylonian Exile, and the kingship renewed, and the people not transgressed again. And others have other interpretations.
Not literally, no. I mean, this verse aside, I might say that everyone is figuratively a child of God, since God created the universe and everything in it. But not a literal child of God in that God impregnated our mothers.
Last edited:
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
What do the titles that God calls the Child, mean? When it says Mighty God, is it the word, Elohim?
CMike
Well-Known Member
Of course. Especially given that the offspring of a judge and a commoner is Nephilim.
As with Humpty Dumpty, when we force words to mean what we want them to mean, we should at least pay them extra.
gnostic
The Lost One
sincerly said:
That's still doesn't make Mary of David's line.
The messianic prophecy implied that the messiah would be of David's direct linage, and Mary is not directly linked (according to the 2 different family trees of Joseph given by 2 different authors).
It is possible that Mary was of the priesthood line - so a Levite.
Now, I have said "possible". I am only speculating that Mary is POSSIBLY a Levite, since we don't know for certain, because we don't have a family tree of Mary herself...BUT according to the gospel of Luke, she was a relative of Elizabeth - possibly her aunt, or even great-aunt since Elizabeth was old, while Mary was young when Gabriel came to her.
Luke 1:5 said:
sincerly
Well-Known Member
Neither was Ruth of David's line, But their marriage brought them both into Judah's/David's tribal line.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
The genealogy presented in Luke is Jesus'. It is also Mary's, but because she married Joseph, Jesus became the legal son of Joseph and his tribe became that of the entire family.
The clue is in the set up of the genealogy, which is a list of Jesus' fathers according to the flesh of Mary. Notice also the qualifier before Joseph's name; 'as was supposed', which would have no purpose unless the author had been aware of the virgin birth. The people already supposed Jesus was the son of Joseph, so its reiteration is otherwise useless. If the people knew either Mary or Joseph's father, which some of them undoubtedly did, they would've pieced everything together. If you read Luke, you should also notice the language used to describe Joseph and Mary, in relation to Jesus. More often than not, Jesus is always referred to as 'her Son' (Luke 2:7), while in contrast, Joseph is always mentioned by name.