Jump to content

Jesus The (supposed) Son Of Joseph And Adam In The Nt


Guest Serene Agnostic Atheist
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Serene Agnostic Atheist

I have never caught the following until pulling up a search for Adam this morning at biblegateway.....

 

NASB Luke 3:23(A)When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of (B)Joseph, the son of Eli,

 

NIV Luke 3:2323Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

 

KJV Luke 3:2323And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli

 

As was thought? As was supposed? WTF??? How exactly can this be considered PROOF of Jesus's lineage when it isn't a FOR SURE, that Joseph is the father? :Hmm:

 

Also while doing my search, I discovered that he (Adam) is worthy of merely one mention in the entire gospels and then it is only in the lineage that the author of Luke wrote. OTH, Paul gives Adam more attention throughout his books accredited to him. Paul seems to be in conjunction with the OT that mans PUNISHMENT for sin is death, just like in the story of Adam and Eve. Paul also says that "the wages of sin is death".

 

To me this serves as further evidence within the bible that it does not flow as smoothly together as what preachers and apologists would have one believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



I remember reading about adoptions for this time period awhile back and, if I recall correctly, the wording used actually creates more problems than it solves. The author is trying to convey that this whole "adoption" is a secret of sorts. So, to the world, jesus is really Josephs son but really he is not. An adopted son could take the priviledges of the adopted father if, and only if, he were officially adopted. The wording in the gospels show that jesus was not officially adopted so he could not take the birthright. If Joseph were to have officially adopted jesus then Mary would have likely been killed since she was supposed to have never been married and so a virgin (questions about how jesus came to be would have been problematic). So, without an official adoption, jesus has no claim to anything in Joseph's bloodline. So, if we accept that the lineage in Matthew to be Joseph's, it cannot be applied to jesus (neither could the one in Luke since it's pretty obvious they're both supposed to be through Joseph). Since the bloodline in Luke is supposed to be Mary's (according to apologists) then it doesn't matter since the woman cannot pass on what she cannot herself possess and that lineage becomes irrelevent. So poor jesus could not take the birthright from Jospeph's bloodline, since he was not officially adopted, and he could not take the birthright from Mary's bloodline since such rights cannot pass through a woman.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An adopted son could take the priviledges of the adopted father if, and only if, he were officially adopted.

 

Not all though. Kingship and tribal identities could only be passed to blood related son

 

Check out this post of mine

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...=100964� (Post 73)

 

 

Regarding adoption(from the link):

 

"A common Christian apologetic and missionary rebuttal is that Joseph, husband of Mary, was not the biological father of Jesus. Rather, Joseph was the adoptive father of the divine Jesus, whose real father was the Holy Spirit. Therefore, by virtue of his being adopted by Joseph, a descendant of King David, Jesus inherited a legitimate claim to the throne of King David."

 

The Jewish challenge to this rebuttal is that the argument given is defeated on at least the following two grounds. First, although adoption of children is allowed according to Judaism, the only rights of inheritance that accrue to an adopted child are those pertaining to tangible assets, such as property. On the other hand, blood-rights, of which tribal pedigree and Levitical priesthood are two examples, can only be transmitted from the biological father to his natural sons, inclusive of any special blessings and curses that are in force. If adoption into the royal line were possible, one would have to wonder why Athaliah took such drastic measures following the death of her sons at the hands of Jehu and his men: 2 Kings 11:1 And Athaliah, Ahaziah's mother, saw that her son was dead, and she rose and destroyed all those of royal descent. Had adoption been a viable solution to the problem of an heir, Athaliah would have been able to pursue that route (see 2 Kgs 9:27, 10:13-14). Second, if Jesus were able to inherit royal lineage through adoption, along with this blood-right also came the Curse of Jeconiah, which had become part of the characteristics of that particular royal branch."

 

another link which looks at this

 

Genealogical Scams and Flimflams

 

You also forget the curse which Joseph got from Jeconiah. If lineage could pass through adoption then so could curses.

 

If you go through my post, hopefully you would be able to rebutt any arguement made by Fundies regarding Genealogy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So things are much, much worse for baby god than I had originally thought. :eek:

 

I knew about the curse and ignored it since no matter how you look at the adoption issue there's just no way it works. To think that I used to see this as the "perfect" solution so jesus could have his cake and eat it too. :ugh:

 

A little, of the right, knowledge is a dangerous thing. :)

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its all a cover up to try to twist the story of how they want it.

i have seen somewere on one of these topics where a roman soldier named pandera is jesus father.

i looked it up theirs alot of websites on that. if thats true that makes jesus roman throwing the whole blood line of david stuff out of whack. mary had to say god did it or be stoned for adultry.

heres the thread:

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=1142&st=90

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.