Job's Wish

Open Heart

Well-known member
Okay, thanks professor.
As the article points out, Jesus was legally Joseph’s son.
It doesn't matter if Jesus was legally joseph's son. The only thing of significance is who Jesus' bio dad is. Till you tell me that Joseph is Jesus' bio dad, you don't have a leg to stand on.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
You're wrong.
Sorry, but you're wrong yet again, and using articles that don't understand Torah doesn't help either.

[While it is true that kingship must be by bloodline, not adoption, this assumes that Jesus was adopted by Joseph. There is no reason to believe he was, Scriptural or otherwise. In fact, Jesus was counted as legally Joseph’s son and, therefore, available to inherit everything from Joseph. This is because Joseph did not put Mary aside—“divorcing” her within the betrothal period—thereby acknowledging that the baby was legally to be his son. The issue of DNA is irrelevant. DNA might be useful in today’s society for proof of blood lineage, but it has no place in the legal system of first-century Jewish thinking.
Within Jewish law, a child fathered outside of the legal marriage, even during the bethrothal period which is still legal marriage, Deut 22:23-24, which in this case would be Joseph and Mary, would render the child a mamzer, Deut 23:2. So, regardless of whether Joseph stayed in the marriage or not, the child would not be his and his stained lineage would carry on with him forever.

However, contrary to the opinion of your correspondent, it is, in fact, possible for women to inherit tribal affiliation under certain conditions. The key passage in the Old Testament proving this point is Numbers 27:1–11.
Wrong. What is discussed in the passages of Numbers 27:1-11 is what to do with the land inheritance. Legally, it belongs to the daughters. The follow-up to the story is Numbers 36:1-13. It is shown that if the daughter's of Zelophehad married outside their tribe, they would lose their ancestral land. The only way to keep it would be to marry within their tribe so that the children could inherit their father's lineage and land as well.

So, the red herring of mtDNA and Y-DNA is irrelevant. Old Testament law accepts that both Mary and Jesus are of the tribe Judah.]
Wrong again.

BTW, the article references DNA. This has no bearing on tribal lineage.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
It doesn't matter if Jesus was legally joseph's son. The only thing of significance is who Jesus' bio dad is. Till you tell me that Joseph is Jesus' bio dad, you don't have a leg to stand on.
It's been discussed with RR over and over again, and she still can't acknowledge the legal problems with Jesus not having a physical father. She would be better off accepting that Jesus was the actual son of Joseph, and then she could have a legitimate discussion of his candidacy for being Mashiach, again just being the anointed one next in line for the throne.

The fact that Joseph was the parent that redeemed, consecrated, and circumcised Jesus, as opposed to God Himself, shows you that Joseph was the actual physical father of Jesus, as the early and original Nazarenes believed regarding Jesus. This is documented by Eusebius himself. And of course, this would smash the virgin birth myth, which isn't required anyway.
 
Top