Benjamin's Cup

[duxrow]

Benjamin's Cup

"Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? John 18:11

"And put my cup, the silver cup, in the sack's mouth of the youngest, and his corn money. And he did according to the word that Joseph had spoken. Genesis 44:2 son of the right hand" (where Jesus is now).]

There are many similarities between Jesus and the eleventh son of Jacob (Joseph), He was hated by his half-brothers who thought they had killed him; he resisted the charms of Potiphar's wife; he interpreted the dreams, etc., but when Joseph PLANTED his silver cup in Benjamin's sack (labeling him as a thief), the reason for him doing this was never given.. not to me, anyway. Why would such a godly man as Joseph want to frame his kid brother in such a way?

Not until Jesus spoke of "the Cup from his Father" is it clear how the Genesis account is an allegory concerning the spiritual cup -- Not a physical cup of tea or `coffee, but rather an assignment from the Almighty!
Benjamin hadn't been with the brothers on their first trip to Egypt, and before they returned to Canaan, Joseph told them 'they wouldn't see his face again unless Benjamin was with them'. Sound familiar? You'd better have Jesus in your heart, or you won't be seeing him either! :thumb:

..

[ali]

Shalom and peace Bob!

Wonderful explanation..amazed to see how you find an inter-textuality between OT and NT.

Take a look at this link (http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.arberry/12:70) as well.

Thank you.
Ali.

[duxrow]

Thanks Ali -- Don't have my copy of the Koran with me, but checked out Sura 12 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=356419) to refresh my memory. That's why I think of the koran as a "commentary" on the Bible.

As for comparisons between OT and NT, it's a matter of "precepts" being a schoolteacher leading to Christ. Many allegories which compare the two Covenants; old and new - Jer31:31. RAM (Richard) has emphasized the 66 books: like 5/12/5/5/12=39, and I see the NT as 4/4/4/5/5/5=27, as well as the Triple Acrostic (22x3), and haven't seen any evidence that Mohammed was aware. ?? You think? :yo:

[ali]

No he wasn't with any of them (http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.maududi/12:102).

He knew neither a scripture nor a faith (http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.ahmedali/42:52).

It was revealed to him, just how it was revealed to Jeremiah or other prophets.

[duxrow]

Roger that. I'm not a student of koran -- does he give any testimony about Satan or the god of this world? I've heard that it claims God is not married or possesses wife, so how could he have a son. ??

[Bob May]

Benjamin's Cup

"Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? John 18:11

"And put my cup, the silver cup, in the sack's mouth of the youngest, and his corn money. And he did according to the word that Joseph had spoken. Genesis 44:2 son of the right hand" (where Jesus is now).]

There are many similarities between Jesus and the eleventh son of Jacob (Joseph), He was hated by his half-brothers who thought they had killed him; he resisted the charms of Potiphar's wife; he interpreted the dreams, etc., but when Joseph PLANTED his silver cup in Benjamin's sack (labeling him as a thief), the reason for him doing this was never given.. not to me, anyway. Why would such a godly man as Joseph want to frame his kid brother in such a way?

Not until Jesus spoke of "the Cup from his Father" is it clear how the Genesis account is an allegory concerning the spiritual cup -- Not a physical cup of tea or `coffee, but rather an assignment from the Almighty!
Benjamin hadn't been with the brothers on their first trip to Egypt, and before they returned to Canaan, Joseph told them 'they wouldn't see his face again unless Benjamin was with them'. Sound familiar? You'd better have Jesus in your heart, or you won't be seeing him either! :thumb:

..

I see the story of Benjamin the realization of the awareness of Grace.
Benjamin recieved 5 times the mess of his brothers. 5 = Grace.
Including Jacob there were 13 at the reunion. 13 is Unity and they dwelt in Goshen which means Unity or "Achad" = "One." Achad also adds to 13.
Paul was the 13th apostle. Jesus was already gone. Paul preached Grace and gave in depth teachings on it.
Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin.

Without an awareness of Grace we will not see the face of Jesus.
Without Benjamin they could not see the face of Joseph.

Simeon (hearing) was held hostage until Benjamin was produced by the brothers. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

Joh 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Ge 45:27 And they told him all the words of Joseph, which he had said unto them: and when he saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of Jacob their father revived:
Ge 45:28 And Israel said, It is enough; Joseph my son is yet alive: I will go and see him before I die.

We see here that Israel is the "spirit" of Jacob.
When Jacob hears the words of Joseph his spirit comes back to life. That spirit of Jacob is Israel. His name changed from Jacob to Israel first at Penuel because there he saw the face of God.

When we hear the words of Jesus (his voice) our spirit comes to life.
Bob

[ali]

Not only a son, neither a friend or a partner, nor a helper or a daughter, you name it...


We have not sent an apostle before you without instructing him that there is no god but I, so worship Me. (25) And yet they say: "Ar-Rahman has begotten a son." Too exalted is He! In fact, those (they call His sons) were His honoured votaries. (26) They did not precede Him in their speech, and acted on His command. (27) He knows what was there before them and what came after them; and they did not intercede for any one but whom He willed, and they were filled with awe of Him. (28) If any one of them said: "I am an el besides God," We should award him Hell; for this is how We requite the evil-doers.

The question is if the Greek word υἱός (huios) has been translated correctly from Classical Greek to Aramaic/Latin/English or not?

It seems that during history, intentional mistranslation has been the only tool to instill corrupt doctrines into genuine biblical texts. Quranic translations no exception as well.

:)

[duxrow]

I see the story of Benjamin the realization of the awareness of Grace.
Benjamin recieved 5 times the mess of his brothers. 5 = Grace.
Including Jacob there were 13 at the reunion. 13 is Unity and they dwelt in Goshen which means Unity or "Achad" = "One." Achad also adds to 13.
Paul was the 13th apostle. Jesus was already gone. Paul preached Grace and gave in depth teachings on it.
Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin.

Without an awareness of Grace we will not see the face of Jesus.
Without Benjamin they could not see the face of Joseph.

Simeon (hearing) was held hostage until Benjamin was produced by the brothers. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

Joh 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Ge 45:27 And they told him all the words of Joseph, which he had said unto them: and when he saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of Jacob their father revived:
Ge 45:28 And Israel said, It is enough; Joseph my son is yet alive: I will go and see him before I die.

We see here that Israel is the "spirit" of Jacob.
When Jacob hears the words of Joseph his spirit comes back to life. That spirit of Jacob is Israel. His name changed from Jacob to Israel first at Penuel because there he saw the face of God.

When we hear the words of Jesus (his voice) our spirit comes to life.
Bob

13 also the number of cards in a suit, and 4 suits, like in 4 Gospels...
Joseph and Benjamin are BOTH types of Jesus: but that Joseph in Egypt was NOT in the pedigree of Jesus, and neither is the Joseph 'husband of Mary'. ! Isn't that delicious?

We get a "name-change" too! It's tied in with power of attorney given to wife: When we say "I DO" to the Husband of Isa 54:5 and then let His Seed be formed in us, Gal 4:19, we're empowered to use the mighty name of JESUS!
:thumb:
..

[Bob May]

13 also the number of cards in a suit, and 4 suits, like in 4 Gospels...
Joseph and Benjamin are BOTH types of Jesus: but that Joseph in Egypt was NOT in the pedigree of Jesus, and neither is the Joseph 'husband of Mary'. ! Isn't that delicious?

We get a "name-change" too! It's tied in with power of attorney given to wife: When we say "I DO" to the Husband of Isa 54:5 and then let His Seed be formed in us, Gal 4:19, we're empowered to use the mighty name of JESUS!
:thumb:
..

Joseph was not in the pedigree. But he was the inheritor. The heir as shown by the coat of many colors. Then he went into obscurity for many (13 aqain) years. He was revaeled to his brothers but tyhat revelation was deendan upon the awareness of grace. That is us. The name is passed onto the son just as it is passed on to the wife. The silver cup that was inside Benjamin's sack was hidden. This is the receptivity that Joseph's life bore witness to in the form of beng able to interpret dreams. He never took credit for this ability but said it was God doing it. That is the cup and when we begin to receve from God,..... hearing his voice interpreting scriptue it just "occurs" to us. Later we realize that it is not us at all. It is the inheritance. We are fellow heirs with Christ and that is the inheritance. Benjamin recived a kiss on his neck from Joseph and he said to him " god be GRACIOUS to you my son." In the story of the prodigal son, his Father also kissed his neck and said "My son was dead and is alive again." Falling on the neck or kissing the neck is symbolic f pssing into a whole other consciousness. In Qabalah it is DAATH, true expperiential Knowledge. The connection between the Head which is Christ and the body which is us. Joseph and the brothers are "parts" of us as individuals. Jacob/Israel is us at different levels of aareness. So we are Israel if we are walkng after the Spirit and Jacob if after the flesh mind. The inheritance passed on to Joseph' sons who were named after Israel, not Joseph. Just some thoughts. Bob

[duxrow]

WOW! That's great. Never heard it expressed that way before, but thanks..

I've said before that "coat of many colors" is Bible-speak for "Salvation for all colors and races of men". You can't be a follower of Jesus, IMO, and a racist too!

Thanks, Bob, and hat's off :yo:

[Bob May]

WOW! That's great. Never heard it expressed that way before, but thanks..

I've said before that "coat of many colors" is Bible-speak for "Salvation for all colors and races of men". You can't be a follower of Jesus, IMO, and a racist too!

Thanks, Bob, and hat's off :yo:
Hi Dux,
It's inheritance. That is what the coat is all about. That also would make sense as to why the brothers got so jealous. But they had no right really. Joseph was first born of Rachel who was the promised wife that his father-in-law cheated him out of , getting an extra seven years work out of him in the process. After making him marry the ugly sister first,..Lol. The coat is a sign of inheritance given to the heir. It said his Father gave him the coat because he loved him more than his brothers. Who was the word "Father" referring to? Also the coat was many colors which refers back to the "bow of promise" in the clouds. That is how we grow in awareness of our inheritance. By believing in the Promises. Again the idea of gifts, Grace, not by our own efforts but by believing in the promises. Bob

[duxrow]

Hi Dux,
It's inheritance. That is what the coat is all about. That also would make sense as to why the brothers got so jealous. But they had no right really. Joseph was first born of Rachel who was the promised wife that his father-in-law cheated him out of , getting an extra seven years work out of him in the process. After making him marry the ugly sister first,..Lol. The coat is a sign of inheritance given to the heir. It said his Father gave him the coat because he loved him more than his brothers. Who was the word "Father" referring to? Also the coat was many colors which refers back to the "bow of promise" in the clouds. That is how we grow in awareness of our inheritance. By believing in the Promises. Again the idea of gifts, Grace, not by our own efforts but by believing in the promises. Bob

"7 years" may be Bible-speak for the two Covenants - first seven is Rachel (ewe to bring forth the Lamb), and the 2nd seven would be for "Fruitful Leah" with the 6 sons and 1 daughter. Both are a parallel to the Pharaoh's Dreams.

Heb:10:5: Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
That GARMENT would be a type of the coat of many colors.

Rich stuff, this, and maybe because too much honey is not recommended? :winking0071:

[Bob May]

"7 years" may be Bible-speak for the two Covenants - first seven is Rachel (ewe to bring forth the Lamb), and the 2nd seven would be for "Fruitful Leah" with the 6 sons and 1 daughter. Both are a parallel to the Pharaoh's Dreams.

Heb:10:5: Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
That GARMENT would be a type of the coat of many colors.

Rich stuff, this, and maybe because too much honey is not recommended? :winking0071:

Hi Dux, I never caught that before. Seven means Covenant. But I would think it might be the other way round. Rachel was promised to Jacob before he married Lea. Just as the New Covenant was promised to Abraham before the law existed. Rachel was also buried in Bethlehem where Jesus was born and cried out from the ground. Bob

[duxrow]

Hi Dux, I never caught that before. Seven means Covenant. But I would think it might be the other way round. Rachel was promised to Jacob before he married Lea. Just as the New Covenant was promised to Abraham before the law existed. Rachel was also buried in Bethlehem where Jesus was born and cried out from the ground. Bob

The 3-period timeline has several units: 2,000 yrs, 20 centuries, seven, the 40/40/40 yrs. of Moses' life, etc. More diversity in the nature of God is the way I think of it. And extension in the purpose of our Confounded Language maybe.

Agree about the twist of Rachel/Leah, but conclude that arrangement fits God's purpose in giving us the precepts first.

Rachel died in Bethlehem! - I think of it as indicating how the Old Covenant 'passed away' then...giving birth to Benjamin!

Blessings! :yo:

[Bob May]

The 3-period timeline has several units: 2,000 yrs, 20 centuries, seven, the 40/40/40 yrs. of Moses' life, etc. More diversity in the nature of God is the way I think of it. And extension in the purpose of our Confounded Language maybe.

Agree about the twist of Rachel/Leah, but conclude that arrangement fits God's purpose in giving us the precepts first.

Rachel died in Bethlehem! - I think of it as indicating how the Old Covenant 'passed away' then...giving birth to Benjamin!

Blessings! :yo:

Hi Dux,
Very good points. So the birth of Christ in us is the awareness of Grace. Problem is the awareness escapes too many people. It is he Foundation of Christianity in my opinion. The lack of this awareness is the veil over the eyes of those that read thyhe old Testament "even to this day".
But it sadly extens to those that read the New Testament also.
Rachel is a mystery to me. But an important mystery.
We know where she died and that she died giving birth to Benjamin.
We know that she cried out from the ground (one of those speaking better things than Abel?) when Herod slaughtered the male children two years old and younger.
We know that she was beautiful which connects her with Christ consciousness. On the Tree of life Tipareth is "Beauty" and refers to Christ consciousness.
But two things that I don't get as yet.
Why did she hide the idol from her father and Jacob?
And why wasn't she there at the reunion of the brothers and Jacob? She was the moon in Joseph's dream. And the dream/prophecy was fulfilled at the reunion. Maybe she was there in the coming together of Joseph and Benjamin. Together those two faculties in us may produce Christ consciousness. Whih would refer to Rachel being raised from the dead, so to speak.

When Jacob met Rachel he rolled away the stone to the well. A symbol of revealing something alive that was formerly believed to not be alive. Water in this case. At the same well Jesus revealed himself as the Messiah to the Samaritan woman when he said "I am he that speaketh with you" or words to that effect.
This all centers around the water of the written word. When it becomes alive and we know who it is that is speaking with us.
So Rachel is important.

Just letting some thoughts perculate.
Bob

[duxrow]

Hi Dux,
Very good points. So the birth of Christ in us is the awareness of Grace. Problem is the awareness escapes too many people. It is he Foundation of Christianity in my opinion. The lack of this awareness is the veil over the eyes of those that read thyhe old Testament "even to this day".
But it sadly extens to those that read the New Testament also.
Rachel is a mystery to me. But an important mystery.
We know where she died and that she died giving birth to Benjamin.
We know that she cried out from the ground (one of those speaking better things than Abel?) when Herod slaughtered the male children two years old and younger.
We know that she was beautiful which connects her with Christ consciousness. On the Tree of life Tipareth is "Beauty" and refers to Christ consciousness.
But two things that I don't get as yet.
Why did she hide the idol from her father and Jacob?
And why wasn't she there at the reunion of the brothers and Jacob? She was the moon in Joseph's dream. And the dream/prophecy was fulfilled at the reunion. Maybe she was there in the coming together of Joseph and Benjamin. Together those two faculties in us may produce Christ consciousness. Whih would refer to Rachel being raised from the dead, so to speak.

When Jacob met Rachel he rolled away the stone to the well. A symbol of revealing something alive that was formerly believed to not be alive. Water in this case. At the same well Jesus revealed himself as the Messiah to the Samaritan woman when he said "I am he that speaketh with you" or words to that effect.
This all centers around the water of the written word. When it becomes alive and we know who it is that is speaking with us.
So Rachel is important.

Just letting some thoughts perculate.
Bob

Agree, and have wondered about Rachel and the idol biz. Wonder sometimes if it makes sense in another time or culture. Her being barren while the first ten brothers (plus Dinah) were being born, is also an important part IMO. I don't expect ALL features to translate by revelation because analogies are never exact in all details.

[Bob May]

Agree, and have wondered about Rachel and the idol biz. Wonder sometimes if it makes sense in another time or culture. Her being barren while the first ten brothers (plus Dinah) were being born, is also an important part IMO. I don't expect ALL features to translate by revelation because analogies are never exact in all details.

That's where we differ. I believe it all has a deeper meaning than what is apparent. I will admit that we can take an allegory further than it was intended or (more likely,get off on the wrong track in our understanding of what it means), but it is my belief that each element of the stories are there for very specific reasons. I will not live long enough to get to the bottom of all of the details. And that's perfectly alright. Knowing that there is something more leaves me open to recieve something more.

Bob

[duxrow]

That's where we differ. I believe it all has a deeper meaning than what is apparent. I will admit that we can take an allegory further than it was intended or (more likely,get off on the wrong track in our understanding of what it means), but it is my belief that each element of the stories are there for very specific reasons. I will not live long enough to get to the bottom of all of the details. And that's perfectly alright. Knowing that there is something more leaves me open to recieve something more.

Bob My sentiments exactly, Bob, so no difference! I'm still open, still learning, and expecting to find more insight into God's Word. Hoping to lead folk like Ram and Rose into a better understanding of the Holy Truth. Amen?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

My sentiments exactly, Bob, so no difference! I'm still open, still learning, and expecting to find more insight into God's Word. Hoping to lead folk like Ram and Rose into a better understanding of the Holy Truth. Amen?
I'm "still open, still learning" too. Indeed, that's why I change my mind about the Bible. I used to think it was "God's Book" - I was always careful not to say it was "inerrant and infallible" because I knew that wasn't true. So I assumed it was exactly as God wanted it to be, warts and all. But now I don't see any reason to believe that since everyone has their own opinions about what it actually means. So why worry about it? Does it contain some "Holy Truth" you think I should know? If so, what is the Holy Truth and why should I believe it is true?

[duxrow]

I'm "still open, still learning" too. Indeed, that's why I change my mind about the Bible. I used to think it was "God's Book" - I was always careful not to say it was "inerrant and infallible" because I knew that wasn't true. So I assumed it was exactly as God wanted it to be, warts and all. But now I don't see any reason to believe that since everyone has their own opinions about what it actually means. So why worry about it? Does it contain some "Holy Truth" you think I should know? If so, what is the Holy Truth and why should I believe it is true?

Takes time, and maybe personal circumstances alter our opinions, but if you're trying to find FAULT, you probably will. Personally, I take it as a challenge that you can succeed in understanding when you WANT! Then, like Abraham took the land "little by little", you can begin filling in your understanding like a picture puzzle -- one piece at a time, but those pieces have links to other pieces. RAM, your Triple-Acrostic approach lined up so well with my own "66 Generations" from Adam to Jesus, that it's hard for me to understand why you aren't "standing, after having done all. BUT, as long as you're drawing breath, even with the Rhino on your chest, it's available to weigh in on the Cause of Jesus! :pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Takes time, and maybe personal circumstances alter our opinions, but if you're trying to find FAULT, you probably will. Personally, I take it as a challenge that you can succeed in understanding when you WANT! Then, like Abraham took the land "little by little", you can begin filling in your understanding like a picture puzzle -- one piece at a time, but those pieces have links to other pieces. RAM, your Triple-Acrostic approach lined up so well with my own "66 Generations" from Adam to Jesus, that it's hard for me to understand why you aren't "standing, after having done all. BUT, as long as you're drawing breath, even with the Rhino on your chest, it's available to weigh in on the Cause of Jesus! :pray:
Actually, the biggest problem seems to be that people want consistency. So if they want to believe the Bible, they want to believe it "entirely" which twists their thinking as they try to fix every perceived error. Or if they want to reject it, they might over emphasize the problems. Myself, I pretty much "fell in love" with the Bible and was not concerned with "proving it" or "solving all it's problems" because I saw so much amazing value in it. I figured that the little "flies in the ointment" found here or there were pretty much irrelevent compared with the blazing light I saw streaming from it's pages. Now in hindsight I think I was "blinded by the light."

What is the "Cause of Jesus" you think I should "weigh in on?"

[duxrow]

Actually, the biggest problem seems to be that people want consistency. So if they want to believe the Bible, they want to believe it "entirely" which twists their thinking as they try to fix every perceived error. Or if they want to reject it, they might over emphasize the problems. Myself, I pretty much "fell in love" with the Bible and was not concerned with "proving it" or "solving all it's problems" because I saw so much amazing value in it. I figured that the little "flies in the ointment" found here or there were pretty much irrelevent compared with the blazing light I saw streaming from it's pages. Now in hindsight I think I was "blinded by the light."

What is the "Cause of Jesus" you think I should "weigh in on?"

"Blinded by the Light" is what happened to Saul/Paul on the Road to Damascus. Psalms:119:99: I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.
Psalms:119:100: I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts. Almost sounds arrogant, No? A main problem IMO is all the false teaching about things that are NOT in the Bible, but that people are too lazy to check out for themself. We CANNOT say "literal and inerrant" because it's full of poetry, tropes, and allegory -- our "Confounded Language" means we interpret differently. But when Paul writes "study to show yourself a good workman, rightly dividing the Word of God", 2Tim2:15, we can, I believe, expect study to pay off. No?

Gotta go... til later, then..

[duxrow]

Actually, the biggest problem seems to be that people want consistency. So if they want to believe the Bible, they want to believe it "entirely" which twists their thinking as they try to fix every perceived error. Or if they want to reject it, they might over emphasize the problems. Myself, I pretty much "fell in love" with the Bible and was not concerned with "proving it" or "solving all it's problems" because I saw so much amazing value in it. I figured that the little "flies in the ointment" found here or there were pretty much irrelevent compared with the blazing light I saw streaming from it's pages. Now in hindsight I think I was "blinded by the light."

What is the "Cause of Jesus" you think I should "weigh in on?" That would be what is called The Great Commission from Matthew28:19,20.

Maybe this example will help the "consistency" approach.

1Ki:8:54: And it was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this prayer and supplication unto the LORD, he arose from before the altar of the LORD, from kneeling on his knees with his hands spread up to heaven. And he stood, and blessed all the congregation of Israel with a loud voice, saying, Blessed be the LORD, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant. The LORD our God be with us, as he was with our fathers: let him not leave us, nor forsake us...

Jesus seemed always to be in the know about everything, and even when he asked questions it was for a purpose. So when he seemed to think he had been forsaken at Calvary,
I thought that highly irregular, considering 1Kings8:57. Was Jesus upset that his Father hadn't rescued him from the Cross? However, his plea is from the beginning of the
22nd Psalm and those who knew that psalm would recognize it was prophetic of Calvary and Jesus. David seemed to be complaining, but Jesus was quoting scripture!

Those discrepancies you speak of, RAM, are what I think of as irregularities to call our attention to hidden meanings, allegories, etc. The answers don't always come quickly, but meditation and prayer will help. You may have to "hang it on a hook", believing that illumination will be forthcoming. :thumb:

[Bob May]

That would be what is called The Great Commission from Matthew28:19,20.

Maybe this example will help the "consistency" approach.

1Ki:8:54: And it was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this prayer and supplication unto the LORD, he arose from before the altar of the LORD, from kneeling on his knees with his hands spread up to heaven. And he stood, and blessed all the congregation of Israel with a loud voice, saying, Blessed be the LORD, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant. The LORD our God be with us, as he was with our fathers: let him not leave us, nor forsake us...

Jesus seemed always to be in the know about everything, and even when he asked questions it was for a purpose. So when he seemed to think he had been forsaken at Calvary,
I thought that highly irregular, considering 1Kings8:57. Was Jesus upset that his Father hadn't rescued him from the Cross? However, his plea is from the beginning of the
22nd Psalm and those who knew that psalm would recognize it was prophetic of Calvary and Jesus. David seemed to be complaining, but Jesus was quoting scripture!

Those discrepancies you speak of, RAM, are what I think of as irregularities to call our attention to hidden meanings, allegories, etc. The answers don't always come quickly, but meditation and prayer will help. You may have to "hang it on a hook", believing that illumination will be forthcoming. :thumb:

Hi Dux and Richard,

Mt 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Over this past year I have come to certain theories/conclusions about this verse.

My conclusions are based partly on Qabalah.
1. The unmanifest God is Nothing or "No-thing" from our perspective.
2. Beyond our comprehension. Beyond our minds.

Also I have in looking into the Baptism of Fire run across three books and some long conversations online with a certain gentleman who has gone through the experience I am alluding to.

The 3 books that concern this experience are;

A Mystic's View (The Real Meaning Behind Baptism) by Eric Robert Nielsen.
Kundalini Energy and Christian Spirituality (A Pathway to Growth and Healing) by Philip St. Romain.
What is Self (A Study of the Spiritual Journey in terms of Consciousness) by Bernadette Roberts.

What I have found (or has found me) through these four sources, (and more that I will not go into here),
is an idea of a further awakening.

Jesus came to die on the cross for us. In that dying he fulfilled the demands of the penalty of the law which was death.
But he also came to show us the way and told us to follow him.
We all know of the death of the Ego. At least in principle.

But think about this. Jesus, in showing us how to live on this earth demonstrated, from the baptism of John through his death on the cross, that he had no Ego. So, what was it that died on the cross???

From reading these books I have come to the conclusion that it is the death of the "Self" that was being demonstrated here and was the reason for the enigmatic saying of Jesus, "My God, my God why hast though forsaken me?"

Three of the four people listed above meditated for many years prior to this experience.
One was a novice.
But the parallels of these four people's individual descriptions of this experience opens up another level of understanding to me of many verses in scripture.

Bob

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What is the "Cause of Jesus" you think I should "weigh in on?"
That would be what is called The Great Commission from Matthew28:19,20.

Well, that "cause" is based on the assumed truth of the Bible, and I have problems with that. :winking0071:




Actually, the biggest problem seems to be that people want consistency. So if they want to believe the Bible, they want to believe it "entirely" which twists their thinking as they try to fix every perceived error. Or if they want to reject it, they might over emphasize the problems. Myself, I pretty much "fell in love" with the Bible and was not concerned with "proving it" or "solving all it's problems" because I saw so much amazing value in it. I figured that the little "flies in the ointment" found here or there were pretty much irrelevent compared with the blazing light I saw streaming from it's pages. Now in hindsight I think I was "blinded by the light."
Maybe this example will help the "consistency" approach.

1Ki:8:54: And it was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this prayer and supplication unto the LORD, he arose from before the altar of the LORD, from kneeling on his knees with his hands spread up to heaven. And he stood, and blessed all the congregation of Israel with a loud voice, saying, Blessed be the LORD, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant. The LORD our God be with us, as he was with our fathers: let him not leave us, nor forsake us...

Jesus seemed always to be in the know about everything, and even when he asked questions it was for a purpose. So when he seemed to think he had been forsaken at Calvary,
I thought that highly irregular, considering 1Kings8:57. Was Jesus upset that his Father hadn't rescued him from the Cross? However, his plea is from the beginning of the
22nd Psalm and those who knew that psalm would recognize it was prophetic of Calvary and Jesus. David seemed to be complaining, but Jesus was quoting scripture!

Those discrepancies you speak of, RAM, are what I think of as irregularities to call our attention to hidden meanings, allegories, etc. The answers don't always come quickly, but meditation and prayer will help. You may have to "hang it on a hook", believing that illumination will be forthcoming. :thumb:
Yes, I was always quite impressed with the connection between Psalm 22 and the Cross. I always knew that Christ was quoting that passage. I have no problem with such obvious connections. The problems I have been discussing are of an entirely different nature. They involve things like the creation myth, the flood story, and the Exodus which all seem entirely unbelievable. If I evaluate the Bible using my normal rational mind, I can't find good reason to believe it. Sure, it is an amazing story, and it touches deep archetypal chords, but I don't think it's "true" so what am I to do?

[Lotus Feet]

13 also the number of cards in a suit, and 4 suits, like in 4 Gospels...
Joseph and Benjamin are BOTH types of Jesus: but that Joseph in Egypt was NOT in the pedigree of Jesus, and neither is the Joseph 'husband of Mary'. ! Isn't that delicious?

We get a "name-change" too! It's tied in with power of attorney given to wife: When we say "I DO" to the Husband of Isa 54:5 and then let His Seed be formed in us, Gal 4:19, we're empowered to use the mighty name of JESUS!
:thumb:
..

You cannot compare Joseph and Jesus they had different missions. Joseph saved a nation from famine and Jesus fed 5,000. Does that make Joseph greater than Jesus? No. There is a lot more to Joseph than many people know, he was also a healer and all the signs point to him working with color healing like Jesus also worked with color.

Interesting that I had an Israeli boyfriend called Benjamin in my 20's. We went out together for a year.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Dux and Richard,

Mt 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Over this past year I have come to certain theories/conclusions about this verse.

My conclusions are based partly on Qabalah.
1. The unmanifest God is Nothing or "No-thing" from our perspective.
2. Beyond our comprehension. Beyond our minds.

Also I have in looking into the Baptism of Fire run across three books and some long conversations online with a certain gentleman who has gone through the experience I am alluding to.

The 3 books that concern this experience are;

A Mystic's View (The Real Meaning Behind Baptism) by Eric Robert Nielsen.
Kundalini Energy and Christian Spirituality (A Pathway to Growth and Healing) by Philip St. Romain.
What is Self (A Study of the Spiritual Journey in terms of Consciousness) by Bernadette Roberts.

What I have found (or has found me) through these four sources, (and more that I will not go into here),
is an idea of a further awakening.

Jesus came to die on the cross for us. In that dying he fulfilled the demands of the penalty of the law which was death.
But he also came to show us the way and told us to follow him.
We all know of the death of the Ego. At least in principle.

But think about this. Jesus, in showing us how to live on this earth demonstrated, from the baptism of John through his death on the cross, that he had no Ego. So, what was it that died on the cross???

From reading these books I have come to the conclusion that it is the death of the "Self" that was being demonstrated here and was the reason for the enigmatic saying of Jesus, "My God, my God why hast though forsaken me?"

Three of the four people listed above meditated for many years prior to this experience.
One was a novice.
But the parallels of these four people's individual descriptions of this experience opens up another level of understanding to me of many verses in scripture.

Bob
Hi Bob,

I have no problem reading the Bible as if it were a mystical text revealing the process of ego death. But then it loses it's "authority" and that's what seems to be the primary reason folks want to find a "deeper meaning" in it! So the process is rather "self-defeating" - why should I begin with the assumption that it is an authoritative book? And besides, if I want to invent my own interpretation I might as well just start from scratch.

Of course, the Bible has played a very important role in the formation of world history - most notably the history of Western civilization. And as such it gives profound insight into the "collective psyche" of Western society. So it is an interesting study. I just need to clear my mind of false dogmas about it as the "authoritative Word of God" which has led to so much error.

Great chatting,

Richard

[Lotus Feet]

Not only a son, neither a friend or a partner, nor a helper or a daughter, you name it...


We have not sent an apostle before you without instructing him that there is no god but I, so worship Me. (25) And yet they say: "Ar-Rahman has begotten a son." Too exalted is He! In fact, those (they call His sons) were His honoured votaries. (26) They did not precede Him in their speech, and acted on His command. (27) He knows what was there before them and what came after them; and they did not intercede for any one but whom He willed, and they were filled with awe of Him. (28) If any one of them said: "I am an el besides God," We should award him Hell; for this is how We requite the evil-doers.

The question is if the Greek word υἱός (huios) has been translated correctly from Classical Greek to Aramaic/Latin/English or not?

It seems that during history, intentional mistranslation has been the only tool to instill corrupt doctrines into genuine biblical texts. Quranic translations no exception as well.

:)

That's how we know that the Koran is not divine.

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. 1 John 2:22

Jesus knew how Sons of God were born, and the bible tells you that he came to bring back what was lost. The Jewish priests had buried the truth from the people. The Dead Sea Scrolls also mentions the Sons of God.

However, Mo didn't have the Dead Sea Scrolls at his disposal, the LORD God purposefully buried the truth from the world, and did not allow it be revealed until his Messenger of Covenant was going to be born.

Mo did not ascend the tree of life as such he was not reborn a Son of God. As such, Mo couldn't impart to others what he had not experienced for himself.

I will give you this analogy, you can't teach another how to drive a car until you can drive it yourself.

Or as Jesus puts it, Islam put the cart before the horse.

The simple fact is that when Muslims deny that Jesus had a heavenly Father, and that the heavenly Father had a Son, they deny their own spiritual inheritance and divine right to become Sons of God.

One cannot understand celestial realties if one hasn't lived it. That is why Jesus was emphatic that his followers should seek within for the kingdom of God.

The book of Genesis also warned people about the tree of knowledge and not to eat from it or you shall surely die. Mo ate from the tree of knowledge. Like many on this forum do as well. They seek outside of themselves instead of seek within. When you truly know yourselves then you will know the cosmos.

[duxrow]

You cannot compare Joseph and Jesus they had different missions. Joseph saved a nation from famine and Jesus fed 5,000. Does that make Joseph greater than Jesus? No. There is a lot more to Joseph than many people know, he was also a healer and all the signs point to him working with color healing like Jesus also worked with color. .

That Joseph in Egypt was a PRECEPT (type) of Jesus the Living Bread. That Joseph in Egypt became vice-President and Chief Storekeeper
in charge of the cornbread, and now Jesus is seated at the right hand of Father God, and currently we're in the Raisinbread period. But only if you have Christ in you, the hidden leaven. Without that, you won't be "rising" to meet Him in the air!

That Joseph in Egypt explained the Pharaoh's two dreams, which turned out to be true prophecy not only for the following 14 years, but as a type of the Two Covenants: Jer31:31

That Joseph in Egypt was NOT in the pedigree of Jesus, and neither was the Joseph who was husband to Mary!

Just for starters, that is... :yo:

[Bob May]

Hi Bob,

I have no problem reading the Bible as if it were a mystical text revealing the process of ego death.


Again I was speaking specifically about death of Self as opposed to Ego in reference to the death on the cross. But our entire path is layed out so it would cover both.



But then it loses it's "authority" and that's what seems to be the primary reason folks want to find a "deeper meaning" in it! So the process is rather "self-defeating"


Not sure what you mean by authority here.
My reasons for looking for deeper meanings has nothing to do with authority if what you mean are do's and dont's???
If what you mean is that the Author created this universe, then it has everything to do with authority.
Why would a Mystic handbook written by the greatest mystic that every walked the earth lose authority when it is realized that he wrote it?



- why should I begin with the assumption that it is an authoritative book? And besides, if I want to invent my own interpretation I might as well just start from scratch.


If you want to "start from scratch" and "invent" something, you have every right to do that.
But if you want to use the bible as a guidebook or handbook you would have to believe it's true or it would be a worthless handbook.



Of course, the Bible has played a very important role in the formation of world history - most notably the history of Western civilization. And as such it gives profound insight into the "collective psyche" of Western society. So it is an interesting study. I just need to clear my mind of false dogmas about it as the "authoritative Word of God" which has led to so much error.

Great chatting,

Richard

By all means we should clear our minds of all false dogmas concerning the bible. Which means our ideas about the bible change as we open ourselves up to a deeper understanding of it.
I would say that most of Western Civilization is based upon a very surface reading of the ten commandments. Nothing wrong with that if you want civilization.

But if our understanding of it stops there we never needed to read the bible anyway. The laws of the land already have those commandments integrated into those laws to some degree.

Bob

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Again I was speaking specifically about death of Self as opposed to Ego in reference to the death on the cross. But our entire path is layed out so it would cover both.

Hey there Bob,

I don't know what you mean by the death of "Self as opposed to Ego."




But then it loses it's "authority" and that's what seems to be the primary reason folks want to find a "deeper meaning" in it! So the process is rather "self-defeating"
Not sure what you mean by authority here.
My reasons for looking for deeper meanings has nothing to do with authority if what you mean are do's and dont's???
If what you mean is that the Author created this universe, then it has everything to do with authority.
Why would a Mystic handbook written by the greatest mystic that every walked the earth lose authority when it is realized that he wrote it?

I mean the obvious - the Bible has an aura as an "authoritative text" in Western spiritual tradition. That's why folks look to it to "confirm" their ideas.

It has nothing to do with "do's and dont's" - it has to do with finding an authoritative "foundation" for your metaphysics.

It is the desire to have a book authored by the Author of Creation so you can have a metaphysical authority.

Of course, it is possible that the Bible is such a book, but if so, it's been so poorly understood that it makes me doubt the intent of the "Author."




- why should I begin with the assumption that it is an authoritative book? And besides, if I want to invent my own interpretation I might as well just start from scratch.
If you want to "start from scratch" and "invent" something, you have every right to do that.
But if you want to use the bible as a guidebook or handbook you would have to believe it's true or it would be a worthless handbook.

It's not that I need "permission" - it seems to me that the kind of path you are pursuing is a path of personal invention. The Bible has not authority of any kind because you are free to interpret it to fit your own intuitions, no matter how egregiously the "plain text" contradicts them. Personally, it makes more sense to reject it than to radically reinterpret it.

It doesn't seem like a "guidebook" if it does not "guide me" and it doesn't "guide me" if I have to radically change the meaning of the words to fit my own intuitions. Why not start with a clean slate without all those problematic passages?



Of course, the Bible has played a very important role in the formation of world history - most notably the history of Western civilization. And as such it gives profound insight into the "collective psyche" of Western society. So it is an interesting study. I just need to clear my mind of false dogmas about it as the "authoritative Word of God" which has led to so much error.
By all means we should clear our minds of all false dogmas concerning the bible. Which means our ideas about the bible change as we open ourselves up to a deeper understanding of it.
I would say that most of Western Civilization is based upon a very surface reading of the ten commandments. Nothing wrong with that if you want civilization.

But if our understanding of it stops there we never needed to read the bible anyway. The laws of the land already have those commandments integrated into those laws to some degree.

Bob
Actually, the influence of the Bible is infinitely deeper than the Ten Commandments. Our cultural metaphors are saturated with everything from Genesis to Revelation.

Great chatting,

Richard

[Bob May]

Hi Richard,


Hey there Bob,

I don't know what you mean by the death of "Self as opposed to Ego."

That is why I suggested Bernadette Robert's book above.
She has a very interesting take on this topic. I found it enlightening.



I mean the obvious - the Bible has an aura as an "authoritative text" in Western spiritual tradition. That's why folks look to it to "confirm" their ideas.

It has nothing to do with "do's and dont's" - it has to do with finding an authoritative "foundation" for your metaphysics.

It is the desire to have a book authored by the Author of Creation so you can have a metaphysical authority.

Ok now I know what you mean.




Of course, it is possible that the Bible is such a book, but if so, it's been so poorly understood that it makes me doubt the intent of the "Author."

The intent of the author is pretty up front. Those reading it in an attempt to understand it must change the way they read it in order to understand it. That theme runs throughout the entire bible. Why would you expect it to be easy when it says it will not be easy.
It is not the bible which is deficient. It is us.



It's not that I need "permission" - it seems to me that the kind of path you are pursuing is a path of personal invention. The Bible has not authority of any kind because you are free to interpret it to fit your own intuitions, no matter how egregiously the "plain text" contradicts them. Personally, it makes more sense to reject it than to radically reinterpret it.

I was not implying that I had the power to give you permission or not. I was merely saying that you and I have the freedom to believe what you and I want to. Including your thinking that I am "inventing." To you it makes more sense to reject it. That is your choice. (Again, I am not giving you permission)
To me, it makes more sense to withold judgement on those things that I do not yet understand. If they are important enough to me an answer will come.
I don't invent interpretations. I do sometimes speculate. And then wait for confirmation.




It doesn't seem like a "guidebook" if it does not "guide me" and it doesn't "guide me" if I have to radically change the meaning of the words to fit my own intuitions. Why not start with a clean slate without all those problematic passages?


If you radically change the words to fit your own intuitions the book is useless. Just go with your own intuitions and drop the need for a "middle man" if that is what you want to do. Thay way you wouldn't have any passages at all to deal with.



Actually, the influence of the Bible is infinitely deeper than the Ten Commandments. Our cultural metaphors are saturated with everything from Genesis to Revelation.


Yes that influence goes very deep. Some will drop as we drop our ego. Some God uses as the language with which he guides us.
Don Juan used the terms Tonal and Tonal of the Times. They could probably be equated with the Unconscious and Collective Unconscious respectively.
Maybe that is why many mystics choose the ascetic way of life. To remove themselves from these collective ideas that pervade whatever culture they are surrounded by.

Great chatting,

Bob

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

don't know what you mean by the death of "Self as opposed to Ego."
That is why I suggested Bernadette Robert's book above.
She has a very interesting take on this topic. I found it enlightening.

Well, could you just state what the difference is? I've never heard of death of the Self (captical S usually refers to the Universal Self - the One).



Ok now I know what you mean.

That's refreshing!




Of course, it is possible that the Bible is such a book, but if so, it's been so poorly understood that it makes me doubt the intent of the "Author."
The intent of the author is pretty up front. Those reading it in an attempt to understand it must change the way they read it in order to understand it. That theme runs throughout the entire bible. Why would you expect it to be easy when it says it will not be easy.
It is not the bible which is deficient. It is us.

How would you sum it up? If I were so inclined, I suppose I could interpret it as a guide/catalyst for awakening to Cosmic Consciousness. But then, I could do that with the Sunday Comics, so that's why I don't really see the value. If it all depends on "deficient" little ol' me, then what good is the book?




It's not that I need "permission" - it seems to me that the kind of path you are pursuing is a path of personal invention. The Bible has not authority of any kind because you are free to interpret it to fit your own intuitions, no matter how egregiously the "plain text" contradicts them. Personally, it makes more sense to reject it than to radically reinterpret it.
I was not implying that I had the power to give you permission or not. I was merely saying that you and I have the freedom to believe what you and I want to. Including your thinking that I am "inventing." To you it makes more sense to reject it. That is your choice. (Again, I am not giving you permission)
To me, it makes more sense to withold judgement on those things that I do not yet understand. If they are important enough to me an answer will come.
I don't invent interpretations. I do sometimes speculate. And then wait for confirmation.

Understood. I guess I just find it more attractive to have a broadly open mind, so if I'm going to be radically reinterpreting the Bible to fit my metaphysics, then I would want to radically reinterpret everything else (Quran, Sunday Comics, Coffee Grounds) if that's the way I choose to go. But I'm disinclined to follow that path since it seems strangely similar to paranoid schizophrenia.




It doesn't seem like a "guidebook" if it does not "guide me" and it doesn't "guide me" if I have to radically change the meaning of the words to fit my own intuitions. Why not start with a clean slate without all those problematic passages?
If you radically change the words to fit your own intuitions the book is useless. Just go with your own intuitions and drop the need for a "middle man" if that is what you want to do. Thay way you wouldn't have any passages at all to deal with.

Bingo! I dropped the Bible like a hot potato and don't feel like I'm missing anything ... except the object of my obsession that held my attention for the last fifteen years! Oh well ... better late than never I suppose.




Actually, the influence of the Bible is infinitely deeper than the Ten Commandments. Our cultural metaphors are saturated with everything from Genesis to Revelation.
Yes that influence goes very deep. Some will drop as we drop our ego. Some God uses as the language with which he guides us.
Don Juan used the terms Tonal and Tonal of the Times. They could probably be equated with the Unconscious and Collective Unconscious respectively.
Maybe that is why many mystics choose the ascetic way of life. To remove themselves from these collective ideas that pervade whatever culture they are surrounded by.

Hummm ... I loved Castaneda when I was a teen. I wonder what he'd seem like now? It's been a lot of years ...

You seem to have a very broad metaphysical view which includes Kabbalah, Tarot, Bible, Castaneda, Jungian Psychology and who knows what else. I can relate, but I have no "metaphysical home" right now. I think I probably need some significant time without any "answers" since I thought I had the "ANSWER" for over a decade.



Great chatting,

Bob
Indeed! :thumb:

[Lotus Feet]

Can you lay down your heads and pick up your hearts? Truth cannot enter the heart until the heart is open to receive it.

[Lotus Feet]

To the person that was talking about the cups this video mentions an NT text with two cups but does not give the exact text details. One of you might know of it. It comes at about 4.5 in.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMdgIk0UKG8&feature=g-hist&context=G21269fcAHT3eBDAABAA

As far as Joseph is concerned, if my memory serves me well, he did what he did with the cup to keep a brother with him. He knew that if he kept his brother, they would return with his Father. Then they would all avoid the famine that he knew was coming upon the region.

[Charisma]

Hi guys,

Great discussion! Thanks!

Short of time but want to drop this in for you, Bob:


A Mystic's View (The Real Meaning Behind Baptism) by Eric Robert Nielsen.
Kundalini Energy and Christian Spirituality (A Pathway to Growth and Healing) by Philip St. Romain.
What is Self (A Study of the Spiritual Journey in terms of Consciousness) by Bernadette Roberts.Another author, and biography you might consider obtaining (may be available online free if you search) are books by and about Smith Wigglesworth.

[Silence]

Hello Everyone,
Over the years I have slowly began to question the way that the bible has been used, and the various denominations, groups or "religions" that have hijacked and twisted it's emphasis to fit their own agendas. As I read part of the beginning of this thread and then the last page, a few thoughts became clear enough to me that I think I can offer an explanation to the message behind Benjamin's cup, and since that episode contains a prophetic "type" of the apocalypse of Joseph, the story is an explanation of the purpose of everything God wants to do. ( I just realized that during the whole time Joseph was ruling Egypt, a time that many bible teachers and Christians see as a type of the "church age", not even the Egyptians {supposedly prophetic of gentile 'believers} actually knew the whole story of who Joseph really was. )

Benjamin (son of right hand, or power) started out as Ben-oni (son of sorrow). She who produced Him did so in a travail that took her life. The text doesn't say if she ever knew that Jacob gave Him His new name. So not only was Joseph a prophetic type of a "suffering servant", but "Benjamin" will also start out that way.

Before the Israelites went out of Egypt, they had oral stories about God's dealings with man, and particularly His dealings with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We can only speculate as to how much they knew about these men's failures (like Abraham lying ang giving up his wife Sarah twice. Isaac's obstinate refusal to bless Jacob until he was deceived into it. And Jacob's deceptive dealings with his father and Laban)

When they stood at Mt. Sinai, and God offered them the opportunity to be His "special treasure above all nations" if they would obey Him completely, they took the offer. (Maybe Benjamin was a type of this "special treasure"?) It seems that they forgot how many times God had been let down by them before, both in Egypt and on their journey up to that point. Anyway, so now as Moses goes up on the mountain, they are waiting to find out what was going to be required of them to become God's special treasure. But they fail and give up before he gets back. After Moses deals with their rebellion, he goes back up to see what is left of their future. God has Moses make two new tablets of stone and write the same "10 words" that were on the first set. As they wander through the wilderness, Moses also writes the rest of the "five books".

What I have been wondering about is, what did the Israelites think when they heard all of the things that were required of them? And once Moses wrote the accounts about the failures of their patriarchs, would they wonder if they could do any better? And one thing that always hamstrung their hopes for success was the corporate nature of the covenant. One person's sin could ruin it for everybody. This makes "sinners" easy scapegoats for the rest of the people, particularly in times when the whole group is in a hard situation. It is the kind of situation in which Jesus appeared. The sinner He associated with were the people that the Pharisees and leaders blamed for the Roman occupation and oppression. Rome also had the domination over the whole world that they thought could be theirs, if it weren't for all of those "sinners". It all boils down to humans holding on to the hope that they will be the ones to finally find a way for everyone in their group to be good enough to be God's "special treasure". A lot of atrocities are committed in an effort to bring that about. It seems that the hardest thing to do is let go of that goal and tell God you don't want to be any more special to Him than any other nation. Maybe what God really wants is people who want all nations to see God as a "special treasure" instead of the other way around?

[Bob May]

Hello Everyone,
Over the years I have slowly began to question the way that the bible has been used, and the various denominations, groups or "religions" that have hijacked and twisted it's emphasis to fit their own agendas. As I read part of the beginning of this thread and then the last page, a few thoughts became clear enough to me that I think I can offer an explanation to the message behind Benjamin's cup, and since that episode contains a prophetic "type" of the apocalypse of Joseph, the story is an explanation of the purpose of everything God wants to do. ( I just realized that during the whole time Joseph was ruling Egypt, a time that many bible teachers and Christians see as a type of the "church age", not even the Egyptians {supposedly prophetic of gentile 'believers} actually knew the whole story of who Joseph really was. )


Joseph, in my opinion, more than anything else is a type of Christ in us. He is called and chosen as evidenced by the coat of many colors. A sign of inheritance.
He is hidden away in Egypt (our subconscious/obscurity). As Jesus was.
He is revealed when the entire man comes together (Jacob and the brothers) and that cannot without an awareness of God's grace. Benjamin's being there is prerequsite. Benjamin is the awareness of Grace. Which is the New Covenant. God is not angry at men. "Peace on earth, good will toward men." NOT between men.
Many things happen at the same time because of this revealing of Joseph being alive.

Joseph who is thought to be dead is revealed as being alive. The prodigal son. "My son was dead and is alive again.
Benjamin is kissed on the neck and Joseph says "God be Gracious to you my son." Again the neck is a thresh hold experience into a completely "other" way of knowing. Daath, experiential knowing.
They sup at noon. The sun is directly overhead. Inspiration!!
Simeon (hearing) is released from being a hostage. We begin to hear the "Voice" of God when reading scripture.
The cup which Joseph drank from and divined with is revealed in Benjamin's sack. Realization of the subconscious symbolism that was merely dealt with from an Ego standpoint has Spiritual meaning to the individual. The sun is directly overhead.
The Ego (Jacob) dies (again) and Jacob's spirit (Israel) revives (comes back to life) says my son is yet alive I will go and see him once more before I die.



Benjamin (son of right hand, or power) started out as Ben-oni (son of sorrow). She who produced Him did so in a travail that took her life. The text doesn't say if she ever knew that Jacob gave Him His new name. So not only was Joseph a prophetic type of a "suffering servant", but "Benjamin" will also start out that way.


Something has to die in order for something else to come to life. If we are talking about our worldview. Under the law and under Grace are incompatable.
Joseph's dream of the son and moon bowing down to him included his mother. But she was not there, was she? Just possibly she was there in Benjamin and Joseph. Or just Benjamin.

Jesus told us to leave father, mother, sister brother, etc. It is that way of thinking that we were raised in and surrounded by that stops our reaching this awakening of the awareness of Grace.
Paul said who has bewitched you?? to the Galatians. Was he talking about witches or just people trying to get them back into law mentality?
Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees and that began the spiritual journey for all of us.
Ur of the Chaldees means "Light of the Magicians." That, in psychological or Qabalistic terms is the reflected light if the moon. Astral, dreams and psychology. In short the storehouse of symbols.
In Joseph this symbology takes on a spiritual significance because his dreams and visions and interpretations are given by God. A higher source is lighting those symbols and telling us of higher things.

This is the significance of the reunion of the brothers and the blessing of Benjamin. (And probably the missing moon/Rachel)

The sun is directly overhead when the sup with Jesus. (The realization that we are fellow heirs and Christ is in us.) A higher source and a realization of something that has been working below the surface within us for a time.



Before the Israelites went out of Egypt, they had oral stories about God's dealings with man, and particularly His dealings with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We can only speculate as to how much they knew about these men's failures (like Abraham lying ang giving up his wife Sarah twice. Isaac's obstinate refusal to bless Jacob until he was deceived into it. And Jacob's deceptive dealings with his father and Laban)

When they stood at Mt. Sinai, and God offered them the opportunity to be His "special treasure above all nations" if they would obey Him completely, they took the offer. (Maybe Benjamin was a type of this "special treasure"?) It seems that they forgot how many times God had been let down by them before, both in Egypt and on their journey up to that point. Anyway, so now as Moses goes up on the mountain, they are waiting to find out what was going to be required of them to become God's special treasure. But they fail and give up before he gets back. After Moses deals with their rebellion, he goes back up to see what is left of their future. God has Moses make two new tablets of stone and write the same "10 words" that were on the first set. As they wander through the wilderness, Moses also writes the rest of the "five books".

What I have been wondering about is, what did the Israelites think when they heard all of the things that were required of them? And once Moses wrote the accounts about the failures of their patriarchs, would they wonder if they could do any better? And one thing that always hamstrung their hopes for success was the corporate nature of the covenant. One person's sin could ruin it for everybody. This makes "sinners" easy scapegoats for the rest of the people, particularly in times when the whole group is in a hard situation.
It is the kind of situation in which Jesus appeared. The sinner He associated with were the people that the Pharisees and leaders blamed for the Roman occupation and oppression. Rome also had the domination over the whole world that they thought could be theirs, if it weren't for all of those "sinners". It all boils down to humans holding on to the hope that they will be the ones to finally find a way for everyone in their group to be good enough to be God's "special treasure".
A lot of atrocities are committed in an effort to bring that about. It seems that the hardest thing to do is let go of that goal and tell God you don't want to be any more special to Him than any other nation. Maybe what God really wants is people who want all nations to see God as a "special treasure" instead of the other way around?

We are God's special treasure. We are Israel the whole man.
This is what is pointed to in the story of the reunion. When all of the parts are together and working as they should, which is Jacob changing to Israel and Joseph meeting Benjamin and Simeon (hearing) out of prison, Then and only then can Israel obey the VOICE of God.
Grace, which an awareness of the reality of this Grace, is Benjamin, not only means a gift. It also means an influx from above,... From across the Abyss in Qabalistic terms.

Simeon, (hearing)/(Peter) experienced this when he said that Jesus was the Christ. Jesus said the flesh and blood had not revealed it to him. But the Father above had revealed it to him.
Then he said upon this rock I will build my church. That is the Rock of the Revelation of Christ.

If we are now under Grace and not the law, it does us little good if we are not aware of it. That is Revelation.

Just a few comments,
Bob

[duxrow]

Agree with the many parallels between Joseph and Jesus. But I see the Egypt story as the way all of us progress from babies to slavery (to sin)...till there came along a Pharaoh who "knew not Joseph".

Was recently impressed to COUNT the Josephs: 12 of them according to Youngs, and compares to 9 for the name of Simon (the 9 are all identified individuals--a 'motley collection' indeed!

The husband of Mary, and Joseph of Genesis, and the rich man of Arimathea are three that most people know.

The others are mostly unknows except for their sons or fathers, and several in Luke's genealogy.

Only the one Joseph in Matt1, and he has a father named Jacob: same as the GenJoseph..
Only two Jacobs in the Bible: both listed in Matt1 - reminding me of the 2 Enoch's and 2 Lamech's of the Genesis record. hmmm? :idea:

[Bob May]

Hi Richard,


Well, could you just state what the difference is? I've never heard of death of the Self (captical S usually refers to the Universal Self - the One).


I don't have time to do it justice or even know that I understand it all. But I will lay out a few things she pointed out from memory.

Self is the mind's ability to turn back on itself in order to look at itself.
To become self aware is that folding or observing.
This is consciousness.
This is also being human. It is what being human is.
This self center (where we are) can be Ego or it can go beyond that to being the True Self.
The death of the Ego is the beginning of a long journey.
The time period from the death of the Ego (Jesus baptism) until the realization of the True self would equate to Jesus' life/ministry here on earth. The death on the cross would demonstrate the realization and death of the Self.
So we go from an Ego as being our center to the True Self as being our center. When we bacome aware of this it dies leaving us with no center at all because the True self borders on the divine and is our contact with the divine.
So, the time period from the baptism of Jesus to the death of the True Self would be the time period (for believers) that begins at Pentecost.

Also some things she said about both the death of Ego and the True Self center rang true to me.
That we can only know these experiences in retrospect. By looking at ourselves and seeing what is missing.

Because we ARE ourselves whether that self center is Ego Based or based in the True self and because it is such a deep level of unconscious or subconscious level that this "looking at ourselves" works from, we cannot recognize this working cosciously.

Again, it is very deep stuff and I am not even done reading the book. I am taking it a step at a time and trying to absorb it.





How would you sum it up? If I were so inclined, I suppose I could interpret it as a guide/catalyst for awakening to Cosmic Consciousness. But then, I could do that with the Sunday Comics, so that's why I don't really see the value. If it all depends on "deficient" little ol' me, then what good is the book?


We need some kind of structure to hang on to and base our understanding in when looking into deeper levels of how our mind and soul and awareness works.
The bible and also Qabalah to a lesser extent have illustrated experiences that I have gone through. This is usually after the fact. In other words I don't recognise what is written in scripture as pertaining to what I have experienced until after I have had the experience.
"It has not entered into the hearts and minds of men what God has in store for his children."
This seems to be the way of it.
This also seems to be Ms. Robert's experience as she says that it is only after the death of Ego and Self that she realized what had happened. Only in looking back and seeing what was missing.

My teacher was a retired aeronautical engineer and used that knowledge to make analogies.
He compared the Qabalah to a slide rule and the bible to an engineer's handbook.

But if you are good with the Sunday comics, go for it.




Understood. I guess I just find it more attractive to have a broadly open mind, so if I'm going to be radically reinterpreting the Bible to fit my metaphysics, then I would want to radically reinterpret everything else (Quran, Sunday Comics, Coffee Grounds) if that's the way I choose to go. But I'm disinclined to follow that path since it seems strangely similar to paranoid schizophrenia.


If the bible itself says that we are Israel then the things pertaining to Israel pertain to us.
If the bible itself says that "these things are allegory" then it is necessary to read them that way in order to understand the bible on it's own terms.
Jesus told his disciples that he was giving them the "Mysteries" when he taught them allegory.
Paul's name changed from Saul and his entire outlook of scripture changed. Then he taught allegory as a key to understanding the two Covenants.

Allegory by itself is without the Spirit is still just an excercise in futility. If you believe you are under the law you are. But allegory is the language that God decided to write the books in. So once you have the Spirit the symbolism begins to tell you of Grace and your relationship with God. And those things that are missing are given to you as disciples of Jesus. That is the promise Jesus gave his "Disciples" when explaining the Parable of the sower. We are his disciples if we hear his "voice."
This is the importance of the story of Joseph and Benjamin and the other brothers. It is an awakening to the reality of the influx from above which is Grace.
It is also



Bingo! I dropped the Bible like a hot potato and don't feel like I'm missing anything ... except the object of my obsession that held my attention for the last fifteen years! Oh well ... better late than never I suppose.


Your choice.





You seem to have a very broad metaphysical view which includes Kabbalah, Tarot, Bible, Castaneda, Jungian Psychology and who knows what else. I can relate, but I have no "metaphysical home" right now. I think I probably need some significant time without any "answers" since I thought I had the "ANSWER" for over a decade.


Silence is a big key.
I have been contemplating staying off the internet for a while to stop all the talking.
Ec 3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
Ec 3:7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

Ps 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.

I have been neglecting meditations and I notice many changes when I spend more time at it.
But there is also sharing what I find. So it is a balance.
A time to keep silence and a time to speak.

Sometimes an "incubation period" to let the Subconscious mind do what it does best, (sort things out and put things together in a different way), is what we need.

All the best,
Bob

[Bob May]

Agree with the many parallels between Joseph and Jesus. But I see the Egypt story as the way all of us progress from babies to slavery (to sin)...till there came along a Pharaoh who "knew not Joseph".

Was recently impressed to COUNT the Josephs: 12 of them according to Youngs, and compares to 9 for the name of Simon (the 9 are all identified individuals--a 'motley collection' indeed!

The husband of Mary, and Joseph of Genesis, and the rich man of Arimathea are three that most people know.

The others are mostly unknows except for their sons or fathers, and several in Luke's genealogy.

Only the one Joseph in Matt1, and he has a father named Jacob: same as the GenJoseph..
Only two Jacobs in the Bible: both listed in Matt1 - reminding me of the 2 Enoch's and 2 Lamech's of the Genesis record. hmmm? :idea:

And both Josephs that were sons of Jacob were getting things directly from God through dreams.

Bob

[duxrow]

And both Josephs that were sons of Jacob were getting things directly from God through dreams.

Bob Right! And also the Joseph son of Heli, husband of Mary, and the "supposed" father of Jesus. :thumb:

[Charisma]

Hi guys,

On the matter of 'supposed' father, Dr Phil Goble offers these thoughts about Messiah's genealogy quite a way down this page, in the section entitled CREDENTIALS OF THE TRUE MOSHIACH. http://www.afii.org/Moshiach.html. (You can skip to it more quickly by searching the page for the word 'adopt'.) He writes:

'Now I’m going to change gears and talk about the genealogies of Moshiach, because these are also two very important credentials.

Before I continue let me say that genealogies were very important in Biblical times. Genealogies were of the HIGHEST importance in Biblical times in all matters of life…in inheritance rights, in marriage arrangements, in property rights, in everything. For a Jewish person to not know everything about his genealogy in Biblical times would be like a modern Jew not knowing whether he has a driver’s license or not. Of COURSE I know that I have a driver’s license. It proves who I am. I can’t even cash a check at my bank without it. So in the same way, people knew their genealogical records. These were even kept in the Beis HaMikdash, that is, in the Temple in Jerusalem. But the Temple with these genealogical records was destroyed in the Churban in 70 C.E., and, after that, many people made wild and unsubstantiated claims to Davidic descent. But the claim of our Moshiach, of HIS genealogical records, was made BEFORE 70 C.E., when his claim could still be checked and substantiated and certified as true because the official records existed and were there for all to see. And they were minutely investigated by the early Jewish believers and all the evidence was recorded. And the record tells us that according to his flesh, that is, in his HUMAN nature, our Moshiach WAS VERY DEFINITELY a descendant of King Dovid.

Now let me pause and say something very obvious. There are two genealogies that everyone has, one is the genealogy of one’s mother and the other is the genealogy of one’s father. Now, in the case of the genealogy of the father, here we are talking about the LEGAL or FOSTER father. And the Mishnah says that if anyone claims someone as his son, when he says, 'This is my son,' he is to be 'believed.' It says that in Baba Bathra in the Babylonian Talmud. And it’s really the reason why Yosef Ben Dovid was able, as the LEGAL father and also heir to the throne of Dovid, that he was able, that he was authorized to confer upon his adopted son the right to inherit King David’s throne. And what does this mean? It means simply that Yosef Ben Dovid adopted a Jewish child and subsequently conferred on him the rights of his son and the rights of his firstborn heir, which includes the throne of King Dovid.

How could Yosef Ben Dovid do that? Because the right of succession had to do with whether the father was in fact willing to recognize any one as his son. You find that in Baba Bathra 8,6. So we’re talking about the Babylonian Talmud, Baba Bathra 130a on Deut 21:16 which says and I quote 'that it shall be on the day on which he causes his son to inherit.' So once Yosef ben Dovid recognized our Moshiach as Ben Yosef Ben Dovid, then even halakhah or Oral Law or even a Jewish halakhic court could not dispute the right of our Moshiach to succession to the throne by this decision of a Davidic heir, Yosef ben Dovid, claiming the child as his own and thus accepting the child as his firstborn heir to the kingship and the throne of King Dovid. So this is one of the credentials of our Moshiach. We’re talking about the first genealogy in the Besuras HaGeulah. It is the genealogy of Moshiach the heir to the throne of Dovid through his LEGAL father, the father that adopted or recognized him as legal heir.'


There is more about Mary in the paragraph following - not quoted here.

[duxrow]

No question but that Jesus BELONGED to the 'House of David'. Both Solomon and Nathan were sons of David, and their genealogies (pedigrees) are covered in Matt 1 and Lk3, as everyone knows. They were brothers, and we know much more about Solomon than about Nathan.

Are either one of the brothers the bio father of Jesus? NO. But the "supposed" father was the husband of Mary, whose father was Heli (from Lk3).
All through the 66 generations, every father had a son to carry on THE NAME, except for when it came to Mary's father who had no sons--and the comparison to the account of the 5 daughters of Zelophehad in Numb26:33 just cannot be dismissed.

[Charisma]

Hi dux,

No argument from me on the significance of Mary's descent from David. What interests me most is that Joseph adopted Jesus, although He had a real Father in heaven, and that legally, adoption was just as if Joseph had been his real father. Adoption did not diminish His claim.

Now I see that He was doubly the son of David, and being the Word made Flesh, was vastly more than triply qualified, being 'a man after God's own heart'.

Numbers 27:1 Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph: and these [are] the names of his daughters; Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah. 2 And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, [by] the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, 3 Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons. 4 Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us [therefore] a possession among the brethren of our father. {done...: Heb. diminished} 5 And Moses brought their cause before the LORD. 6 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 7 The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. 8 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.

[duxrow]

Hi Charisma,

I wouldn't argue against adoption (Rom8:15), but IMO that's not the issue. When Mary said to boy Jesus "Your father and I were worried about you", his answer corrected her by saying "I must be about MY Father's business".

Father-to-son and father-to-son, until FINALLY it was father-to-daughter! Christians have a Heavenly Father and heavenly husband,Isa54:5 so seems reasonable to me that the Virgin Mary would also have husband and father with same name. :winking0071:

[Bob May]

Hi Charisma,

I wouldn't argue against adoption (Rom8:15), but IMO that's not the issue. When Mary said to boy Jesus "Your father and I were worried about you", his answer corrected her by saying "I must be about MY Father's business".

Father-to-son and father-to-son, until FINALLY it was father-to-daughter! Christians have a Heavenly Father and heavenly husband,Isa54:5 so seems reasonable to me that the Virgin Mary would also have husband and father with same name. :winking0071:

Hi Dux,
Also interesting to me is that there are 4 Josephs in the geneology in the book of Luke.
And that the geneology begins right after Jesus is baptised of John instead of at his birth.

Heli means ascension.It equates with Eli which also means ascension.

Joh 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Joh 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

Mt 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Bob

[duxrow]

Hey Bob,
You spoke of the 4 Joseph's in Luke3 --
There's another (random) 4 in the Old Testament, and Eleven all told!
Since the Genesis-Joseph was the 11th Son; seems to me the Holy Ghostwriter is having some fun with us, eh?

[Bob May]

Hey Bob,
You spoke of the 4 Joseph's in Luke3 --
There's another (random) 4 in the Old Testament, and Eleven all told!
Since the Genesis-Joseph was the 11th Son; seems to me the Holy Ghostwriter is having some fun with us, eh?

So Joseph is the elevent son.
And in his prophetic dreams there were eleven sheaves bowing down to him. And also eleven stars and the son and moon.
These were prophecies of the reunion of Jacob and his sons. Which reunion was dependant upon both Jacob/Iosrael (the whole man soul and spirit) and also Benjamin (our realization that we are under Grace) being there.
Then we have Jesus parable of the workers in the vinyard. The worker who came at the eleventh hour recieved the same wages as those who had worked all day long. The workers complained that it was unfair and that he was unworthy. They were of course correct. What they were missing was that they too were unworthy. That is Grace. It is not earned, it is a gift. The vinyard owner said something like wasn't the penny his to give as he saw fit? His to give not earned.
So eleven seems to me to be symbolic of this awakening to the concept of Grace.
This also relates to mammon. It is the money system. The idea that if we do things for God he owes us one. The type of thinking that permeates the whole of mankind since the fall. Cause and effect thinking, tree of the knowledge of good and evil thinking. Grace is the opposite and we as human beings are so saturated with this cause and effectthinking that the awareness that we are no longer under the law, but under Grace, as a hard time sinking into our thick skulls.
That is humanity.
Bob

[duxrow]

Roger the thick skulls. Joseph's dreams made them jealous apparently, but the fulfillment was right on the money!
Like the Religious folk in Jesus time were only thinking about their own circumstances, and how HE was intruding.. :thumb:

[David M]

Hi dux,

No argument from me on the significance of Mary's descent from David. What interests me most is that Joseph adopted Jesus, although He had a real Father in heaven, and that legally, adoption was just as if Joseph had been his real father. Adoption did not diminish His claim.

Now I see that He was doubly the son of David, and being the Word made Flesh, was vastly more than triply qualified, being 'a man after God's own heart'.

Numbers 27:1 Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph: and these [are] the names of his daughters; Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah. 2 And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, [by] the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, 3 Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons. 4 Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us [therefore] a possession among the brethren of our father. {done...: Heb. diminished} 5 And Moses brought their cause before the LORD. 6 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 7 The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. 8 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.

Hello Charisma and all

Thanks Charisma for bringing this story to my attention. I expect Rose will reading this; if not, you might like to use this in one of Rose's threads where she is knocking the Bible for being biassed towards men and not promoting women's rights. Your quoted story is a great example of Women's Rights exercised. Rose accuses God for letting Moses write bill of divorcements for men and not including women. Here we have a beautiful exampleof where women take the initiative and make a request and through Moses, God grants it. This really knocks against Rose's claim that God is biassed against women.

On the subject of the farthership of Jesus. From the perspective of the Jews at that time, Jesus would have been regarded as the son of Joseph. Jesus was a plain boy growing up in a family and to all appearances, Joseph would have been regarded as his natural father and could be seen to be instructing and providing for his son. Unless told differently, why would anyone of that day think differently? It was not till Jesus was aged 30 he bagan his ministry. Up to that time, he was regarded as the Carpenter's Son.
Joseph accepted Mary as his wife, knowing that she had not had sexual relations with another man. Joseph would have accepted responsibility for bringing up Mary's son (the Son of God). Jesus had to be brought up naturally, because naturally, he was a infant made of flesh and blood and had the same needs as any other baby/child.

It must have come as a shock when Jesus asked; "who is my mother?" Just as Mary was accepted as his mother and it was accepted that Joseph was the natural father, when Jesus asks this question, Jesus is paving the way for him to reveal himself as the Son of God. I doubt that Mary would have gone about boasting her son was the Son of God. Had Mary done this, she would have been open to ridicule and blasphemy and Joseph would also have suffered. It was up to Jesus to reveal that he was the Son of God/ Son of Man. Now the people could ridicule him and think he was delusional; not his parents. I know by this time, Jesus had revealed himself as being different, and that wwould have been obvious by the miracles he did.

Jesus is taking away the barriers of our relationship with one another. We can all be called brethren in Christ. Even though the word brethren is masculine (sorry Rose) it is obvious that women are included in this term. Mary was a woman, she had been blessed by God, and Jesus was not biassed against women. In Christ, we are all the same. We can all be the Children of God or the Sons of God, whatever our sex. On the cross, Jesus had compassion for his mother, he had not forgotten her or denied her as a result of asking this question; who is my mother? The people were being taught an important lesson and we get the lesson as well. I expect this was another message Mary would ponder in her heart.

David

[Rose]

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Charisma http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=42833#post42833)

Hi dux,

No argument from me on the significance of Mary's descent from David. What interests me most is that Joseph adopted Jesus, although He had a real Father in heaven, and that legally, adoption was just as if Joseph had been his real father. Adoption did not diminish His claim.

Now I see that He was doubly the son of David, and being the Word made Flesh, was vastly more than triply qualified, being 'a man after God's own heart'.

Numbers 27:1 Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph: and these [are] the names of his daughters; Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah. 2 And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, 3 Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons. 4 [B]Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us [therefore] a possession among the brethren of our father. {done...: Heb. diminished} 5 And Moses brought their cause before the LORD. 6 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 7 The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. 8 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.


Hello Charisma and all

Thanks Charisma for bringing this story to my attention. I expect Rose will reading this; if not, you might like to use this in one of Rose's threads where she is knocking the Bible for being biased towards men and not promoting women's rights. Your quoted story is a great example of Women's Rights exercised. Rose accuses God for letting Moses write bill of divorcements for men and not including women. Here we have a beautiful example of where women take the initiative and make a request and through Moses, God grants it. This really knocks against Rose's claim that God is biased against women.
Hello David, :yo:

How sad it is that you feel the need to "knock" me for my true statements of male-bias in the Bible and the denial of women's rights. The Bible does indeed declare that Yahweh allowed men to divorce their wives, and have a many wives as they chose, a right that was not given to women! I fail to see how my claim of male-bias in the Bible is diminished at all because of Neh. 27:1? In fact is strengthens my position, obviously before the daughters of Zelophehad came before Moses and demanded inheritance rights they had none! Only with their pleading before Moses did Yahweh decided to give them "limited" inheritance rights...that is to say "only" if there were no sons did the daughters get an inheritance.

It appears David that you have shown yourself to be foolish in trying to disrespect me in my endeavor to accurately show the male-bias of the Bible.

All the best,
Rose

[CWH]

Hello David, :yo:

How sad it is that you feel the need to "knock" me for my true statements of male-bias in the Bible and the denial of women's rights. The Bible does indeed declare that Yahweh allowed men to divorce their wives, and have a many wives as they chose, a right that was not given to women! I fail to see how my claim of male-bias in the Bible is diminished at all because of Neh. 27:1? In fact is strengthens my position, obviously before the daughters of Zelophehad came before Moses and demanded inheritance rights they had none! Only with their pleading before Moses did Yahweh decided to give them "limited" inheritance rights...that is to say "only" if there were no sons did the daughters get an inheritance.

It appears David that you have shown yourself to be foolish in trying to disrespect me in my endeavor to accurately show the male-bias of the Bible.

All the best,
Rose

Wow, so you want women to be able to divorce their husbands and have as many husbands as they chose! That's equality! And the men end up paying for their maintenance, that is a scam!

I wonder how polyandrous women can cope with so many husbands in bed unlike polygamous men! :eek: Wonder who was the father of the child?

The reason why men in olden days were allowed multiple wives was because of the need to propagate. Infant mortality were high in olden days and men died young due to wars. If men in olden days were to have single wife, human would probably been extinct due to high male death and infant mortality. Wise God! and no wonder He instructed human to multiply and filled the earth in Genesis. Polygamy did not happened in Israel or proposed by the God of Israel, it was in existence in every human culture since time immemorial. Have you ever wonder why God made many men still capable of "performing" even in their eighties? And Funny, why did most women "closed shop" in thier fifties? Funny still, why didn't God provided two penises for men or two vaginas for women if multiply and fill the earth was God's goal for mankind? Remember, many organs come in twos...2 lungs, 2 nostrils, 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 hands, 2 legs etc.

God is wise!:pray:

[Charisma]

Hi David,

No problem! Here's another one for you, demonstrating both the order and the authority God gives to men (males) who submit themselves to Him.

Job 42:12 So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses. 13 He had also seven sons and three daughters. 14 And he called the name of the first, Jemima; and the name of the second, Kezia; and the name of the third, Kerenhappuch. 15 And in all the land were no women found [so] fair as the daughters of Job: and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren.






Hi Rose,

In another thread you said:

I was a Christian for nearly 30 years and can honestly say that neither before, during, or after my Christian experience did I ever feel dead in trespasses and sinsand this, as many of your statements, show that you have not yet understood God, His truthfulness, nor the unchangeable, eternally enduring character, nature and dynamic of His word.

The fact is, that apart from a fresh relationship with God through faith in the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, you are 'dead in trespasses and sins', and the fact that you don't 'feel' your deadness therein, only testifies against your blinkered view.


So, are you going to do about that?



Are you going to make any attempt to understand Him, or, are you going to carry on bandying about arguments which only demonstrate further your blindness to truth, and, to His lovingkindnesses and goodness to mankind in general, including - if not especially - to women?



Doesn't it move you a mu_millimeter that the Church is to be His bride?







If you took as much time to study the honour God has given women in scripture, as you do to misrepresenting Him to the world, there is a remote possibility that you'd see how very far from the intentions of His heart for women, your received (through feminism) view of Him, falls.




Further, your general representation of males is unduly and unfairly inaccurate, (despite that they are also dead in trespasses and sins until entering a relationship with Jesus Christ by faith), such that a closer look at the shortcomings of women (in biblical terms) would be a welcome respite. :winking0001:





:playball:





:signthankspin:

[Charisma]

Hi dux,

I missed your reference to Isaiah 54:5

For thy Maker [is] thine husband; the LORD of hosts [is] his name;
and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel;
The God of the whole earth shall he be called.



And I'm not quite sure what you're implying? (Thinking about it?)


In every way Mary took the female/feminine part as she lived out her womanhood through the extraordinary circumstance of having been called upon to bear Jesus.

Being married to the official heir to the throne of David would have made her queen only if he had become king.

What interests me is the parallel of Jesus being adopted into a human family - whose REAL Father was God - to be accounted as the Messiah according to prophesy; while we have to be adopted into God's family for fulfilment of all prophecies of our becoming accounted worthy of the forthcoming kingdom, THE King (of kings) of which, is the now risen Messiah. Both He and we have had both earthly and God as our fathers, the latter being of unending significance to us; the former having been and being, of unending significance to Him!


Psalm 45

My heart is inditing a good matter:
I speak of the things which I have made touching the king:
My tongue [is] the pen of a ready writer.

Thou art fairer than the children of men:
Grace is poured into thy lips:
Therefore God hath blessed thee for ever.

Gird thy sword upon [thy] thigh, O [most] mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty.

And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness [and] righteousness;
And thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things.

Thine arrows [are] sharp in the heart of the king's enemies;
The people fall under thee.

Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever:
The sceptre of thy kingdom [is] a right sceptre.

Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness:
Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
All thy garments [smell] of myrrh, and aloes, [and] cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad.

Kings' daughters [were] among thy honourable women:
Upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.

Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear;
Forget also thine own people, and thy father's house;
So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty:

For he [is] thy Lord;
And worship thou him.

And the daughter of Tyre [shall be there] with a gift;
The rich among the people shall intreat thy favour.

The king's daughter [is] all glorious within:
Her clothing [is] of wrought gold.
She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework:
The virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee.
With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought:
They shall enter into the king's palace.

Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth.

I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations:
Therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever.

[duxrow]

Hi Charisma,

God is a HUSBAND, Isa54:5, is the plainest text IMO, but also "he's married" (to the "sisters" Israel and Judah). He's a "fountain of Living Water", Jer2; a Potter, Rock, etc. Many metaphors, as with Jesus, His SON. But since Jesus always referred to Him as Father, it seems to me we haven't noticed how 'husband' applies.

My understanding is that Mary's earthly father was named Joseph, and he's the only Joseph found in the generations leading to Jesus. Her earthly husband and earthly father both named Joseph! (means: The Lord will add a son).

I know, I know -- but the Greek 'aner' means a male... not nec. a husband. And even diff. in Aramaic, I'm told.

The subjects of "The Name" and Toledoth (Generations) are such primary Bible themes, that the father-to-son progression was only interruped when it came to that Joseph who didn't have a son! So Matthew is the pedigree of Jesus (thru Mary) and Luke3 is pedigree of Mary's husband IAW Numb36.

The "Queen" biz doesn't compute for me: maybe missed something. Mary's the Mother of the King of Kings! :break:

[Bob May]

Hi Charisma,

God is a HUSBAND, Isa54:5, is the plainest text IMO, but also "he's married" (to the "sisters" Israel and Judah). He's a "fountain of Living Water", Jer2; a Potter, Rock, etc. Many metaphors, as with Jesus, His SON. But since Jesus always referred to Him as Father, it seems to me we haven't noticed how 'husband' applies.

My understanding is that Mary's earthly father was named Joseph, and he's the only Joseph found in the generations leading to Jesus. Her earthly husband and earthly father both named Joseph! (means: The Lord will add a son).

I know, I know -- but the Greek 'aner' means a male... not nec. a husband. And even diff. in Aramaic, I'm told.

The subjects of "The Name" and Toledoth (Generations) are such primary Bible themes, that the father-to-son progression was only interruped when it came to that Joseph who didn't have a son! So Matthew is the pedigree of Jesus (thru Mary) and Luke3 is pedigree of Mary's husband IAW Numb36.The "Queen" biz doesn't compute for me: maybe missed something. Mary's the Mother of the King of Kings! :break:

Hi all,

Lu 3:23 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,
Lu 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Mt 1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
Mt 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Mt 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
Mt 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

The way I look at it Luke's geneology shows the ancestral line of the son of man.
It goes backwards in time to Adam.

Matthew's geneology is different. It shows our Spiritual Progression as sons and fellow heirs with Christ.
It goes forward in time and begins with Abraham. Our first steps on a journey in which we do not know where we are going (as was the case of Abraham when leaving Ur of the Chaldees) but beginning to follow the promises that are our guide to realizing the fullness of Christ in us the hope of glory.

Ur of the Chaldees means "Light of the Magicians, which basically describes all the people we are surrounded by that tie us to this earth plane, cause and effect world that we are imprisoned by (spiritually) since we came into this world.
In learning to live in this fallen world, we necessarily become caught in it.
It is not until we begin to experience the same spiritual awakening that Abraham symbolises that we beging to learn the way out.
It is the seed of Abraham which is Christ that leads us on this journey.
It is the seed of Adam that trapped us in the first place.

Mary is the good ground in which the seed (Christ) is planted.
She illustrates the receptive mind that is ready to accept the seed.

Gabriel comes to Elizabeth and announces the good things to come. (which is his job)

Gabriel announces to Mary how this will happen.

Lu 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
Lu 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
Lu 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Lu 1:29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
Lu 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
Lu 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Lu 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Lu 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Lu 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God

Now notice this is all future tense about the conception...
Then Elizabeth comes to Mary and says;

Lu 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Lu 1:44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
Lu 1:45 And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord. (through Gabriel)

Still future!!!

Lu 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
Lu 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Lu 1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
Lu 1:49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.

Past Tense!!!!

Here we see Mary speaking in the Past Tense concerning the conception.
There is nothing that "apparently" happened between Gabriel and Elizabeth telling Mary what would come to pass and Mary responding that it had come to pass.
Elizabeth spoke the word of God through Prophecy and Mary Believed it.
That was the conception.
The seed (word of God) was planted in Mary's womb at that instant that she believed just as it is planted in our hearts when we believe.

Just as Jesus said in the explanation of the Parable of the Sower.
The seed is the word. The sower is the son of man (Elizabeth, in this case) And the good ground bringeth forth fruit.
First the blade (two edged sword,..word of God)
Then the ear (hearing)
Then the full corn in the ear (Fruit)

So wouldn't this also relate to the Seed of the Woman being that Elizabeth spoke the words?

Bob

[duxrow]

Hey Bob, Think you shoulda included this verse. Seems to me this is the way BELIEVERS begin to have Christ formed in them...? :talk008:
Lu:1:38: And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

As for the confusion between genealogies of Matthew and Luke -- you're taking what I think of as the "Scofield" position, which I didn't like from Day 1. Remember, there were nineteen generations before Abraham, and when you replace the 5 'skipped' names, it leaves us 19+14 and 19+14 instead of the three 14's.

Noah's 'Ten' is followed by the Ten between Shem and Abram#20, and the Book of Ruth ends with Ten from Pharez to David -- those three periods of "Ten", IMO, are a PRECEPT for the 3x14 of Matthew.

Mostly 'cause I object to having 'husband Joseph' in the pedigree of Jesus, is why I see that Joseph as Mary's FATHER. The word pedigrees is from Numb 1:18, and reminds me how the subject of father-to-son pedigrees has somehow been overshadowed by the "Kingly Reign" focus.

[Bob May]

Hey Bob, Think you shoulda included this verse. Seems to me this is the way BELIEVERS begin to have Christ formed in them...? :talk008:
Lu:1:38: And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.


Point taken. It was her believing without question that was the Good Ground aspect that I was pointing out.



As for the confusion between genealogies of Matthew and Luke -- you're taking what I think of as the "Scofield" position, which I didn't like from Day 1.


I don't know anything about Scofield. And there is no confusion. There is a lot going on here and I am only pointing out what I have found. There is a reason for all things in scripture and we don't all get the same details.
Another thing about Matthew's geneology is that you have to add US if you want the third 14 to work out.
If you look at the third grouping there are only 13. Which, by the way is Unity, Achad, One. So, to get all three principles in there, ie. the 42, the 13, and the three baptisms. Being fed, Unity with the Father and son and water, air and fire. Mem, Aleph, Shin.



Remember, there were nineteen generations before Abraham, and when you replace the 5 'skipped' names, it leaves us 19+14 and 19+14 instead of the three 14's.


Three fourteens add to 42,..the months that we are fed in the wilderness as the woman in revelations.
A time, times and half a time, 3 1/2 years. All very important Principles in our progression.
I don't really care so much about the actual number of generations. This is about Regeneration.
This is the circumcision (thropughout their generations) of the HEART.
And the three baptisms.



Noah's 'Ten' is followed by the Ten between Shem and Abram#20, and the Book of Ruth ends with Ten from Pharez to David -- those three periods of "Ten", IMO, are a PRECEPT for the 3x14 of Matthew.


Maybe, but then you are speaking of a different principle being illustrated. Three tens. Ten is one with God. Or that which returns to God. ie the remnant and tithe and us.




Mostly 'cause I object to having 'husband Joseph' in the pedigree of Jesus, is why I see that Joseph as Mary's FATHER. The word pedigrees is from Numb 1:18, and reminds me how the subject of father-to-son pedigrees has somehow been overshadowed by the "Kingly Reign" focus.
[/QUOTE]

But Joseph is not Mary's father.
Joseph is a very specific level of awareness or awakening as demonstrated by God communicating to him through angels and dreams. He also never took credit for his prophecies or dream interpretations.
That applies Both Josephs.
And it applies to us if we experience that awareness that Joseph demonstrated.
Also Joseph was very humble. Again both Josephs.
Two main characters in the bible and between the two of them there are probably less than a dozen words spoken.

Bob

[duxrow]

Roger, Bob.. I still haven't figured out how you segment your replies merged into my post -- you'd think I'd have learned that by now.:confused:

That final "14" works like this for me, and seems to lack a generation. Been a long time now, but think that was one of the reasons I faulted it.

1. Salathiel
2. Zorobabel
3. Abiud
4. Eliakim
5. Azor
6. Sadoc
7. Achim
8. Eliud
9. Eleazar
10. Matthan
11. Jacob
12. Joseph & Mary (same generation)
13. Jesus

Note that Salathiel/Zorobabel also appear in the Luke3 list !! (not the same father/son though) :eek:
http://www.cswnet.com/~duxrow/webdoc5.htm

[Charisma]

Hi dux, :tea:

I had said:

Being married to the official heir to the throne of David would have made her queen only if he had become king.to which you replied:

The "Queen" biz doesn't compute for me: maybe missed something. Mary's the Mother of the King of Kings!Can you figure out what you missed?

In your next post you say:

Mostly 'caus.e I object to having 'husband Joseph' in the pedigree of Jesus, is why I see that Joseph as Mary's FATHEROkay, first thing: please clarify which Joseph (chapter and verse) you are seeing as 'Mary's FATHER'?

My suspicion is that if you can figure out the first, you'll also understand what is wrong with your 'objection' to 'husband Joseph' in Jesus' geneology.

I look forward to your thoughts.

[duxrow]

Hi dux, I had said: to which you replied: Can you figure out what you missed?

In your next post you say:
Okay, first thing: please clarify which Joseph (chapter and verse) you are seeing as 'Mary's FATHER'?

My suspicion is that if you can figure out the first, you'll also understand what is wrong with your 'objection' to 'husband Joseph' in Jesus' geneology.

I look forward to your thoughts.

Not yet, Charisma. The Queen biz not jelling. The ONLY Joseph, in Matt 1:16, is who I figure for Mary's father. 4 Joseph's are in the Lk3 account, so seems to be a family name.

You are focused on the Kingly Reign, but myself on the father to son or daughter genealogy (Toledoth) -- True, Jesus now king of kings, and WE are kings/priests, but the final King of Judah was Zedekiah who wasn't in the genealogy leading to Salathiel/Zorobabel.

Been thinking that a Queen only becomes one after she MARRIES a King... Mary seems to have been a follower of Jesus just like others..

Dont think I'm being any help. Maybe get a clearer head some other day..:yo:

[Charisma]

Hi dux,


Not yet, Charisma. The Queen biz not jelling. The ONLY Joseph, in Matt 1:16, is who I figure for Mary's father. 4 Joseph's are in the Lk3 account, so seems to be a family name.

You are focused on the Kingly Reign, but myself on the father to son or daughter genealogy (Toledoth) -- True, Jesus now king of kings, and WE are kings/priests, but the final King of Judah was Zedekiah who wasn't in the genealogy leading to Salathiel/Zorobabel.

Been thinking that a Queen only becomes one after she MARRIES a King... Mary seems to have been a follower of Jesus just like others..

Dont think I'm being any help. Maybe get a clearer head some other day.. It may seem like I'm focused on the 'Kingly Reign', but really that's not on my mind consciously.

Regarding Matt 1:16, I have no idea why it should not mean what it says... And, I'm surprised that you would want to tinker with scripture to fit your own thinking, instead of wrestling for a better understanding of the importance of Joseph being Mary's husband. (I hope that doesn't sound harsh, because CLEARLY you've put a great deal of time and thought into the genealogy already!) ' And the point I'm about to make is old hat... but I believe it's relevant for two reasons. The first is that it would be unthinkable for a young woman to have a baby out of wedlock, even though she wasn't 'in' wedlock with Joseph in the fullest sense, their marriage being as yet unconsummated.

Joseph's proper behaviour towards Mary, (in obedience to God's word to him personally), to continue to make her his wife legally, while not consummating their marriage until after Jesus had been born, completely covered her as a woman, and ensured that Jesus was born into his (Joseph's) family, thus making His claim to the throne of David impossible to dispute. Humanly speaking, God saw to it that Mary and His son were being provided for in as normal and natural a way as possible despite the stresses of the era in which they all lived.

It is important to note that Jesus' eligibility to the throne of David came through His adoption by Joseph, and not through Mary. In other words, although she was descended from Judah (through David and Nathan), it was her MARRIAGE to Joseph, being the mother of Jesus, which drew her into the family of the heir (being one flesh with him) to the throne, NOT her natural descent from David. Can you see that?

What I meant by, 'Being married to the official heir to the throne of David would have made her queen only if he had become king', is that Mary, despite being descended from David, was not the heir to the throne: Joseph was. She could never have become the monarch while there was a male heir alive, but, married to the heir she could have been queen, legitimately. (That was all I had in mind about that.)

And yes, Mary being the mother of the King of kings, is AWESOME!



In the next two posts I'll quote from a thread on another forum, with thoughts others have had about the Heli or Jacob connundrum.

[Charisma]

'Heli: Mary's blood father.

Jacob: Joseph's blood father.

Luke 3:23 " (a)And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, (b)being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, (c)which was the son of Heli,"

Take the middle section out(b), between the comma's, to find out the subject of the last section(c).

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, which was the son of Heli,"

Section (b) is just showing the assumption of the layman. This geneology in Luke is then Mary's.' (posted by letsgetbusy)


'This is pure speculation and assumption - no actual proof is supplied to this answer.' (posted by wildbranch)


' 'This is pure speculation and assumption - no actual proof is supplied to this answer.'

No not at all. With an understanding of First Century civilization this explanation is very plausible and very acceptable.

Luk 3:23 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,

Here is what Norman Geislar says about the subject:

Problem Jesus has a different grandfather here in Luke 3:23(Heli) than He does in Matthew 1:16(Jacob). Which one is the right one?

Solution This should be expected, since they are two different lines of ancestors(italics mine), one traced through His legal father, Joseph and the other through His actual mother, Mary. Matthew gives the official line, since he addresses Jesus' genealogy to Jewish concerns for the Jewish Messiah's credentials which required that Messiah come from the seed of Abraham and the line of David (cf. Matt. 1:1). Luke, with a broader Greek audience in view, addresses himself to their interest in Jesus as the Perfect Man (which was the quest of Greek thought). Thus, he traces Jesus back to the first man, Adam (Luke 3:38).

That Matthew gives Jesus' paternal genealogy and Luke His maternal genealogy is further supported by several facts. First of all, while both lines trace Christ to David, each is through a different son (italics mine) of David. Matthew traces Jesus through Joseph (his legal father) to David's son, Solomon the king, by whom Christ rightfully inherited the throne of David (cf. 2Sam. 7:12ff). Luke's purpose, on the other hand, is to show Christ as an actual human. So he traces Christ to David's son Nathan, through his actual mother, Mary, through whom He can rightfully claim to be fully human, the redeemer of humanity.

Further, Luke does not say that he is giving Jesus' genealogy through Joseph. Rather, he notes that Jesus was "as was supposed" (bold mine) (Luke 3:23) the son of Joseph, while He was actually the son of Mary. Also, that Luke would record Mary's genealogy fits with his interest as a doctor in mothers and birth and with his empasis on women in his Gospel which has been called "the Gospel for Women."

I would add to Geislar's review that the first three chapters of Luke appear to be information gathered from Mary herself which lends further credance to Lukes genealogy of Jesus being from that of Mary's lineage. That Joseph is called the son of Heli is also perfectly acceptable because in the first century it was common for a son-in-law to be called a son.

Here is Adam Clarke's commentary on this passage:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That St. Luke does not always speak of sons properly such, is evident from the first and last person which he names: Jesus Christ was only the supposed son of Joseph, because Joseph was the husband of his mother Mary: and Adam, who is said to be the son of God, was such only by creation. After this observation it is next necessary to consider, that, in the genealogy described by St. Luke, there are two sons improperly such: i.e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons. As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. This import, bishop Pearce has fully shown, νομιζεσθαι bears, in a variety of places - Jesus was considered according to law, or allowed custom, to be the son of Joseph, as he was of Heli. The two sons-in-law who are to be noticed in this genealogy are Joseph the son-in-law of Heli, whose own father was Jacob, Mat_1:16; and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri, whose own father was Jechonias: 1Ch_3:17, and Mat_1:12. This remark alone is sufficient to remove every difficulty. Thus it appears that Joseph, son of Jacob, according to St. Matthew, was son-in-law of Heli, according to St. Luke.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (posted by jeremyhulsey)


These above and the following taken from: http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6310&forum=36&9

[Charisma]

'I don't want to muddy the waters of Hulsey's explanation but I did some thinking about this a few years ago. Here are my notes. (tell me what you think Jeremy?)

When we 'follow the seed' through the genealogy in Matthew we immediately hit the question as to whose genealogy we are reading. Matthew says quite clearly that this is the genealogy of Joseph. It breaks the pattern of 38 'begettings' to say that Jesus was not begotten of Joseph by declaring not that Joseph 'begat' Jesus but was 'born' of Mary the espoused wife of Joseph. 'And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.' (Matt. 1:14-16,) If you read it slowly you will see the sudden change in the pattern.

But if this Joseph's genealogy, why give it at all? Matthew's genealogy is the official royal descent of the heirs to the throne. Not all of the descendants of David in this list became kings, but all had throne rights. The throne line ended, technically with Jechonias (Jehoiachin), but Salathiel and his son Zerubbabel would have been the next kings if the monarch had continued.

A closer look at Jehoiachin may prove interesting. Jehoiachin was king in Judah for only 3 months and 10 days before being taken captive to Babylon. He lived as a prisoner in Babylon for the next 36 years and was released on the death of Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiachin remained in Bablylon until his death. During his absence his uncle Zedekiah as a puppet king for Babylon for 10 years. Zedekiah is not mentioned in Matthew's genealogy.

Matthew then says that Jehoiachin (Jechonias) 'begat' Salathiel and Salathiel is the person in whom the genealogies of both Luke and Matthew briefly synchronise.Matt. 1:12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
Luke 3:27 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, The astute will notice that Matthew says that Salathiel was the son of Jechonias (Jehoiachin) whereas Luke says that Salathiel was the son of Neri. How come?

There is a key prophecy in Jeremiah that needs to be brought in as evidence. Jer. 22:24 As I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;
Jer. 22:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. (Coniah is a shortened form of Jehoiachin.) As a result of his sin God pronounced, through Jeremiah, childlessness upon Jehoiachin. Jehoiachin would never 'beget' anyone.

It is most likely that as a consequence Jehoaichin adopted a descendant of David to be his successor; Neri, the twentieth generation from David but of the line of Nathan, not Solomon. There may be an indication of this other 'royal family' in Zech. 12:12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; By this 'adoption' Salathiel would become legal heir to the throne. (Adoption into the family line was an accepted phenomena in ancient eastern cultures and in the scriptures. cf Ruth 4:13-17 where Ruth's son by Boaz is recognised as Noami's child) Salathiel thus became the legal son and heir of Jehoiachin. The word 'begat' in Greek comes from a root which actually means 'to become'.

Luke's geneaology says that Luke 3:23 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, The word translated 'supposed' here in 'nomizo' which comes from the Greek word 'nomos' meaning law. Used in this sense it can bear the sense of 'legally'; technically 'to do by law'. It came to be used of 'judgements' or 'conclusions' (Matt. 5:17; 10:34; 20:10; Luke 2:44; 3:23; Acts 7:25; 8:20; 14:19; 16:13,27; 17:29; 21:29; 1Cor. 7:26,36; 1Tim. 6:5) In other words Jesus was 'legally regarded' as the son of Joseph. Mary referred to Joseph as Jesus' father in Luke 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. Joseph was 'legally' though not physically the father of Jesus and as such it was Joseph who gave Jesus his name. (Matt 1:21,25)

So the Bible states quite plainly that Joseph is not the physical father of Jesus, but it also states that Jesus descended from the tribe of Judah. (Heb 7:14) This must mean that Mary descended from Judah, and there seems to be an indication of close connection between Mary and these genealogies.

There have been different suggestions aimed at squaring the two genealogies. Here is my favourite. Let's suppose that Luke's genealogy is the physical genealogy of Joseph and Matthew's is the legal, throne-line, genealogy. The two genealogies run in parallel until the time of David, although Matthew has some gaps. The line then divides. The legal descant continues through Solomon but the physical descent continues through Nathan; a different son of David. Solomon's physical line died out with Jehoiachin. Jehoiachin, as we have suggested, adopts a descendant of David (Salathiel) as his legal heir. From Salathiel the genealogies run in parallel again until we arrive at the descendant of Matthan or Matthat when they separate out again and go their separate ways.

If Matthan, no 38 in Matthew's genealogy, and Matthat, no 71 in Luke's genealogy, are the same person (and it seems most likely that they were) we discover that Jacob (Matt 1:15) and Heli (Luke 3:23) were brothers. But it seems to say that Joseph was the son of Heli in Luke 1:23 and that Joseph was the son of Jacob in Matt 1:16. Is there any scenario which could fit this data? (I am following a different route to Hulsey here) Yes there is, and although it may seem a little strained to our western ways, it is probably a scenario that was often worked out in bible culture.

Suppose or surmise that Joseph is the physical son of Heli and that Mary is the physical daughter of Jacob. (I know, I know, wait a while...) Let us surmise that Jacob had no son of his own and so adopted his nephew Joseph as his heir (or that Jacob died without male issue in which case his nephew would become his heir). This would make Joseph the legal son of Jacob and the physical son of Heli. Joseph now become betrothed to Jacob's daughter, his cousin, Mary. Luke's genealogy does not use the formula 'begat' but simply uses a definite article in the genitive case which simply means 'of'. (You can see this in a KJV which provides italics for added words.)This would certainly accommodate Joseph as his legal heir...' (posted by philologos)

[duxrow]

Lk1:60 "And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John.
And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name".

Why would the name Joseph have been used for the father of Mary? Because this principle from Luke suggests they paid attention to family names.

Bothered me 'til recently when I saw how Jacob-II may have reached back to that very first Jacob who ALSO had a son named Joseph (the 11th).

There are only two Jacobs in the Bible (both in Matt 1), and all the other 64 names are unique -- (Enoch-1 and Lamech-1 don't count 'cause they were in the line of Cain)

2Ch:36:9: Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
2Ch:36:10: And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem.

Sorry, Charisma, but I continue to see if differently than you or Jeremy. I don't like the word "aner" translated as 'husband', and don't believe Solomon's line ended with Coniah (Jehoiachin) - but realize the NIV doesn't count Assir. (#52 in the pedigree of Jesus). Not really important who's right or wrong, IMO, except that Truth should play a role in netting more believers..?? :thumb:

[Charisma]

Hi dux,

I might be missing something in your posts, but you seem to be saying that the Joseph who is listed in Matt 1:16 as Mary's espoused husband, is, in your opinion, actually Mary's father?

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Is the Joseph in v 18, in your opinion, also Mary's father? (If so, how can this be, seeing it's against the Law?)



Sorry, Charisma, but I continue to see if differently than you or Jeremy. I don't like the word "aner" translated as 'husband',Is there any evidence that Mary had no brothers?

I can't see why you're so insistent upon changing her 'husband' to her father, as her married status had already taken over her identity by the time Gabriel spoke to her, even if she had been an only daughter. Two things do matter, though. The first is that she qualified as a royal virgin (necessary to fulfil Isaiah's prophecy), and, that she was espoused to the legal heir to the throne of David.


and don't believe Solomon's line ended with Coniah (Jehoiachin)I agree. But, with respect to sitting on the throne, his direct descendants would not.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi dux,

I might be missing something in your posts, but you seem to be saying that the Joseph who is listed in Matt 1:16 as Mary's espoused husband, is, in your opinion, actually Mary's father?

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Is the Joseph in v 18, in your opinion, also Mary's father? (If so, how can this be, seeing it's against the Law?)

The idea is that Mary married a man who happened to have the same name as her father. They were both called "Joseph." The problem with this idea is that a father in the Bible is never called the daughter's "man" (aner), and worse, that exact word is used to refer to her husband Joseph in the immediate context:

Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband (aner) of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband (aner), being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

Obviously, there is only one "Joseph" in those two passages. The theory fails. This is unfortunate since it makes it impossible to trust even the most simple statements of the Bible, such as the assertion that the genealogy divides into three groups of fourteen generations. Of course, that assertion fails for another reason, namely, generations were left out of the count! So it's obviously false for at least two reasons.

Why would anyone think the Bible is trustworthy?

[gregoryfl]

The Aramaic Peshitta offers a solution that the Greek does not, that speaks of the first Joseph in verse 16 as being her 'gabra', which contextually carries 3 meanings. The Joseph mentioned in verse 19 is called her 'ba'lah', meaning 'owner' which speaks of his being her husband, in today's terms.

Ronen

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The Aramaic Peshitta offers a solution that the Greek does not, that speaks of the first Joseph in verse 16 as being her 'gabra', which contextually carries 3 meanings. The Joseph mentioned in verse 19 is called her 'ba'lah', meaning 'owner' which speaks of his being her husband, in today's terms.

Ronen
It sounds like the author of the Peshita felt free to fix the problem. It seems very unlikely that the Greek writer would have mistakenly used the word aner for both her father and her husband.

[gregoryfl]

It sounds like the author of the Peshita felt free to fix the problem. It seems very unlikely that the Greek writer would have mistakenly used the word aner for both her father and her husband.I agree. He could easily though, have seen the word 'gabra', and taken it to mean 'aner', which ended up causing the problem in the first place, not only with regard to that, but also with the numbering of the generations.

[gilgal]

I think the reason Joseph blessed Benjamin 5 times as much as his other brothers in supply is to test his brothers jealousy since Jacob loved Joseph more than his brothers and they were moved with jealousy. But this time his brothers were thinking of their father's welfare and wanted to make sure he Benjamin would come home safely.

But the cup was Joseph's way of keeping him in Egypt maybe trying to upset them.

[duxrow]

I agree. He could easily though, have seen the word 'gabra', and taken it to mean 'aner', which ended up causing the problem in the first place, not only with regard to that, but also with the numbering of the generations.

:signthankspin: Thanks Greg - I remember this, but thought gavra with a 'v' instead. Anyway, seems like they're confusing the issue since Matthew plainly is speaking of the generation of Jesus; whereas Luke writes of his "supposed father". It's an understandable
dilema IMO -- like a red herring to distract from the true generation count of 66 names, just like the number of books in THE WORD. :thumb:

Chrisma said
Problem Jesus has a different grandfather here in Luke 3:23(Heli) than He does in Matthew 1:16(Jacob). Which one is the right one? They're BOTH right. Even RAM apparently hasn't grasped the significance of Mary having no brothers. She MUST marry into the Tribe of her father, so Luke makes it clear that she obeyed the Law and did just that. :dizzy:??

[duxrow]

I think the reason Joseph blessed Benjamin 5 times as much as his other brothers in supply is to test his brothers jealousy since Jacob loved Joseph more than his brothers and they were moved with jealousy. But this time his brothers were thinking of their father's welfare and wanted to make sure he Benjamin would come home safely. But the cup was Joseph's way of keeping him in Egypt maybe trying to upset them.

Sounds good to me, Gil. And maybe how "tasting the Word" compares with good things to eat. Prov 15:17 and stalled ox, comes to mind.

:typing: First Joseph, then Benjamin, were the 'beloved son' -- hardly a word about baby sister Dinah. Curious, to me.
He FRAMED his baby brother by planting His Personal Cup in the corn-money sack - it may be vague, but I'm thinking of how Jesus was numbered with the transgressors..even though he wasn't guilty.. :idea: ?

[Charisma]

Hey dux,

I didn't say. 'Problem Jesus has a different grandfather here in Luke 3:23(Heli) than He does in Matthew 1:16(Jacob). Which one is the right one?'

Also, where do you get the knowledge that Mary had no brothers? (Chapter and verse or other reference?)

Lastly, it should be obvious that Joseph (heir to the throne of David) couldn't have a baby without a wife. That's where Mary comes in. Yes, she is also of Judah, (but don't forget she had a cousin who was a Levite - Elisabeth). Maybe her mother was a Levite?

[duxrow]

:confused2: What can I say, Charisma? I copied that quote from your post.

I realize that many don't agree, but the Genealogy in Matthew is that of JESUS, all the way back to Genesis, except leaving out the nineteen generations prior to Abraham and five names in the 3x14 middle column. period.

The Genealogy in Luke is that of Mary's husband Joseph and 3 other Josephs -- it's there to show she was obedient to the Law of Numbers 36 in marrying someone of the same tribe as her husband. (..because her father had no sons) doesn't say that explicitly anywhere I know of, but the proof of pudding is in the eating-- and the result makes it all look so SIMPLE. "By the fruits, you know..." :sunny:

[Charisma]

Hi dux,

The quote which I didn't recognise as my own, was from quote of a post by another - but you're right, I 'posted' it here.


I realize that many don't agree, but the Genealogy in Matthew is that of JESUS, all the way back to Genesis, except leaving out the nineteen generations prior to Abraham and five names in the 3x14 middle column. period.The glaring difference between Matthew and Luke, though, is that Matthew specifically states that 'Jacob' 'begat\ Joseph the husband of Mary'. With regard to the claim that Jesus is the son of David, Joseph's natural descent is essential.

It is also essential that an heir to the throne takes a suitable wife. One has to observe there must have been more than one virgin in Judah who was a 'royal' virgin, who could have fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy. Thus, when Gabriel states Mary is 'highly favoured' 'among women', it is not such a generalisation as it sounds to western ears.


The Genealogy in Luke is that of Mary's husband Joseph How can it be? Joseph's actual father is declared in Matthew's list.

I say this with some caution, because I've just found this in 1 Chronicles 3:16 And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son. {Jeconiah: also called, Jehoiachin or Coniah} 17 And the sons of Jeconiah; Assir, Salathiel his son, {Salathiel: Heb. Shealtiel} 18 Malchiram also, and Pedaiah, and Shenazar, Jecamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah. 19 And the sons of Pedaiah [were], Zerubbabel, and Shimei:


it's there to show she was obedient to the Law of Numbers 36 in marrying someone of the same tribe as her husband. (..because her father had no sons) doesn't say that explicitly anywhere I know ofThis is, therefore, pure guesswork on your part, as the order in scripture about marriage is (overwhelmingly by a very long distance) that a man takes a wife - not the other way round. This shows up both in the Old and the New Testament, endorsed by Jesus more than once (Matt 19 esp).

I would also comment that there would have been other descendants of David who could claim right to the throne, but... only Joseph's wife was chosen to bring the Saviour, Emanuel - Jesus - into the world.

[duxrow]

Hi dux,
The quote which I didn't recognise as my own, was from quote of a post by another - but you're right, I 'posted' it here.

The glaring difference between Matthew and Luke, though, is that Matthew specifically states that 'Jacob' 'begat\ Joseph the husband of Mary'. With regard to the claim that Jesus is the son of David, Joseph's natural descent is essential.


Yes, I agree that Jacob begot Joseph (that's what father's do), but Joseph is the FATHER of Mary--not husband. Or so goes my thinking.
In regard to your second sentence, We are seed of Abraham, just as Jesus is Son of David.

It is also essential that an heir to the throne takes a suitable wife. One has to observe there must have been more than one virgin in Judah who was a 'royal' virgin, who could have fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy. Thus, when Gabriel states Mary is 'highly favoured' 'among women', it is not such a generalisation as it sounds to western ears.
Dont care about heir to throne--talking father to son, or son to father.

How can it be? Joseph's actual father is declared in Matthew's list.
Absolutely! We differ on whether it's husband or father (aner).

I say this with some caution, because I've just found this in 1 Chronicles 3:16 And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son. {Jeconiah: also called, Jehoiachin or Coniah} 17 And the sons of Jeconiah; Assir, Salathiel his son, {Salathiel: Heb. Shealtiel} 18 Malchiram also, and Pedaiah, and Shenazar, Jecamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah. 19 And the sons of Pedaiah [were], Zerubbabel, and Shimei: Been there-done that.
Are you on board with the two (2) pair of Salathiel-Zorobabel? one in Matt, another in Luke.

This is, therefore, pure guesswork on your part, as the order in scripture about marriage is (overwhelmingly by a very long distance) that a man takes a wife - not the other way round. This shows up both in the Old and the New Testament, endorsed by Jesus more than once (Matt 19 esp).

I would also comment that there would have been other descendants of David who could claim right to the throne, but... only Joseph's wife was chosen to bring the Saviour, Emanuel - Jesus - into the world. throne again? but we're ALL K/P now..

You don't think Zelophehad is of any consequence?

[Charisma]

Hi dux,


You don't think Zelophehad is of any consequence? There are no grounds to bring Numbers 36 into Mary's situation. It may be that at the time she became espoused to Joseph, that she had no brothers, but she was still quite young, and, the scripture usually tells us when something unusual is going on.

In this case, the unusual thing is that after centuries of waiting for a certain son of David to be born, Joseph finds that his espoused wife is expecting Him, and he himself begins to receive instruction from God through dreams. That's the main narrative. It is always important for an heir to a throne to take a virgin to wife, so there can be no confusion or question of paternity (as God knows).

The Bible is full of marriages, some of the most important ones being between a man and one of his close relatives. I can't seen anything to get excited about Joseph of Judah marrying a girl from Judah. It happened all the time. What is significant is that Mary herself was descended from David. That made her royal too. That was an important qualifying factor of the virgin who would conceive.


I've just looked for the sons of Judah, since David was only one descendant of Judah, (and, David himself had many sons - fifteen from his wives apart from concubines). There seem to be five official ones, two of whom died at the hand of the Lord.

But then I found this:

Genesis 46:9 And the sons of Reuben; Hanoch, and Phallu, and Hezron, and Carmi.

1 Chronicles 4:1 The sons of Judah; Pharez, Hezron, and Carmi, and Hur, and Shobal. {Carmi: also called, Chelubai or Caleb} Have you any idea why Hezron and Carmi would be listed as sons of both Reuben and Judah?



We are seed of Abraham, just as Jesus is Son of David.I don't 'see' the distinction you are making?

Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham.

Romans 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ...... and if we are in Jesus... ?

[duxrow]

Hi dux,

There are no grounds to bring Numbers 36 into Mary's situation. It may be that at the time she became espoused to Joseph, that she had no brothers, but she was still quite young, and, the scripture usually tells us when something unusual is going on.
You think the scripture usually tells us when something unusual is going on?? NIMBY comes to mind. Pr25:2"glory of God to conceal a thing--honor of kings to search out..
In this case, the unusual thing is that after centuries of waiting for a certain son of David to be born, Joseph finds that his espoused wife is expecting Him, and he himself begins to receive instruction from God through dreams. That's the main narrative. It is always important for an heir to a throne to take a virgin to wife, so there can be no confusion or question of paternity (as God knows).

The Bible is full of marriages, some of the most important ones being between a man and one of his close relatives. I can't seen anything to get excited about Joseph of Judah marrying a girl from Judah. It happened all the time. What is significant is that Mary herself was descended from David. That made her royal too. That was an important qualifying factor of the virgin who would conceive.

Mary and her husband were both descended from David--nobody has disputed it, that I know of..??

I've just looked for the sons of Judah, since David was only one descendant of Judah, (and, David himself had many sons - fifteen from his wives apart from concubines). There seem to be five official ones, two of whom died at the hand of the Lord.
If you want info about Judah, don't forget to read the parenthetical chapter 38 of Genesis, about the twins he sired with Tamar.
But then I found this:

Genesis 46:9 And the sons of Reuben; Hanoch, and Phallu, and Hezron, and Carmi.

1 Chronicles 4:1 The sons of Judah; Pharez, Hezron, and Carmi, and Hur, and Shobal. {Carmi: also called, Chelubai or Caleb} Have you any idea why Hezron and Carmi would be listed as sons of both Reuben and Judah?

Many names duplicated, and some names changed -- it's a confusing subject for sure, but checks out. IMO. Both sons had the same name.
I don't 'see' the distinction you are making?
Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham.
Romans 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ...... and if we are in Jesus... ?
We may have to agree to disagree, Charisma; seems we aren't on the same page. :dizzy: dux

[Charisma]

Hi dux,

I don't know if I'm disagreeing with you (at all), since by 0 AD the inheritance rights of women would have been well-established in Israel, and, the New Testament contains (that is, what has been written) more than enough narrative, knowledge and instruction for us to grapple with, apart from adding possible back-stories to those of which we've been directly informed (like Numbers 36 being applied to Mary). But of course, you can believe what you like about Mary's situation. I still think it's pure guesswork on your part with not a written word to support it.

As I've already stated, to me, the really really interesting thing about Jesus' genealogy is that He was the promised 'seed' of Eve, adopted into Joseph's family, thus giving Him right to be called the 'son of David'. Not just any son, but the son which fulfilled mountains of prophecy, thus confirming Him as the Messiah. Without His 'natural' parentage, He would not be the Messiah.

'Kingly Reign' theology is not my thing :winking0001: - but 'the adoption' is.

Romans 9: my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises; 5 Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came]...'

Romans 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Galatians 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.


There is more to read carefully in 1 Chronicles, too. Chapter 3:16 And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son. {Jeconiah: also called, Jehoiachin or Coniah} 17 And the sons of Jeconiah; Assir, Salathiel his son, {Salathiel: Heb. Shealtiel} 18 Malchiram also, and Pedaiah, and Shenazar, Jecamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah. 19 And the sons of Pedaiah [were], Zerubbabel, and Shimei: and the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith their sister: :

According to that account, Salathiel is Jeconiah's grandson, Assir being his actual father. I'm beginning to wonder if 'son of' is a way of distinguishing generational gaps rather than direct lineage. There is only one Zerubbabel, and his father is NOT Salathiel, but Pedaiah! Aaargh!




:playball:

[duxrow]

:aim14:Hope this helps, Charisma -- it's not any easy subject.

Some say that women aren’t in the genealogies, but I beg to disagree!

2K23:36 has wife of Jehoiakim as daughter of Pedaiah! And 'Shelomith their sister', from 1Chr3:19. The mothers of most kings of Judah are duly noted.

Another Pedaiah is in 1Chr27:20.
Salathiel called Shealtiel in margin of 1Chr3:17 KJV

Maybe spelling at fault, because the Zorobabel in Mt 1:13 cannot be the same person as the Zorobabel in Lk3:27 followed by Salathiel
The ‘Zeru’ is OT, it’s ‘Zoro’ in the NT.

What’s with ADOPTED? The Gentiles have now been adopted (or grafted, Rom 11:17) into God’s Covenant, but Jesus is purebred #66 from Adam & Eve#1, Abraham#20, Boaz#30 David#33, Solomon#34, Hezekia#46, Josiah#49, Salathiel#53

The page "Names" at Gospelsmiths.com might help.. Blessings! :break:

[Charisma]

Hi dux, :icon_hello:


Thanks for your reply.

Regarding Zorobabel's parentage, both Matthew and Luke make the same claim. What makes you think they don't?

Matthew 1:'... and Salathiel begat Zorobabel...'

Luke 3:'... Zorobabel, which was [the son] of Salathiel...'

I agree there are women hidden in the men in the genealogies, but Matthew's use of 'begat' seems to mean something different than we would normally expect; we would think 'begat' meant that Salathiel (Shealtiel) was the physical father of Zorobabel. How to decipher the Hebrew mind in regard to the phraseology? For instance, did the other brothers/fathers die, so that Salathiel was the older of the (only) two living male relatives? Is this how they get linked together in the mind of the genealogist? Or, was it that the others did not return from Babylon, and therefore forfeited further mention, and most definitely didn't/wouldn't make it into the Christ's genealogy? When one looks earlier in the chapter at the way Bathsheba's children are listed, they are all out of birth order. Maybe Jeconiah's are, too.

This is how the Jewish Publication Society (JPS 1917) translate those verses in I Chronicles 3:16 And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son. 17 And the sons of Jeconiah--the same is Assir--Shealtiel his son; 18 and Malchiram, and Pedaiah, and Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah. 19 And the sons of Pedaiah: Zerubbabel, and Shimei...' This makes 'Assir' yet another name for Jeconiah, but at least it rules out that extra generation I thought it had intended. So, Salathiel and Pedaiah are brothers, and Zerubabbel is the following generation. Therefore, Salathiel begat Zeruababbel via Pedaiah. (That's okay with me!)

Regarding adoption, it seems you are missing something in Romans 9:4: that is,
1) to whom Paul is speaking
2) that he puts adoption as the first (main) thing to which Israelites are entitled BY FAITH (not forgetting Romans 10:3).

If they (Israelites) don't believe in Messiah Jesus, they won't be 'adopted' (as sons of God). Hence the famous verses following:

Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

[duxrow]

:whiteflag: OK, Charisma - "UNCLE"
Next subject!

I'll go quietly! :sFun_banghead2:

[Charisma]

Hi dux,

That's an oxymoron if ever I saw one! :winking0001:


I'll go quietly! :sFun_banghead2:

That OT Zeru spelling reflects the Aramaic, I think, and the Zoro the Greek; but I can find only one Zoro/Zeru. All the places he's mentioned are compatible with the history through which he lived. You're correct there is more than one Pedaiah, though. :)




Sorry you feel you're banging your head against a wall. It's never my intention to be obdurate... but I do like to get down to (biblical) details... :pray:




Blessings to you :yo:






:thpeace_dove_olive_

[duxrow]

OK, Charisma, we'll call a truce, 'cause both of us apparently like details.
Isn't an oxymoron more like kosher-ham or peaceful barbarian?