Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1   [ 20 posts ]   
Author Message
 Post subject: Son of David
PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:52 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 2:13 pm
Posts: 61
Location: Texas
I am taking a History of Christianity class being taught by a Jew. (I attend a secular university by the way) This was today's question. I could use some help.

If Joseph was not the biological father of Christ, how could Jesus be considered Son of David?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 3:00 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 81324
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
First, Joseph acknowledged him as his son, so he was legally in the line of David. Second, there are arguments that Mary herself was also of the house of David.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 3:05 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 9:23 am
Posts: 19259
Location: NYC area
Religion: Catholic
Since the angel Gabriel says that "He will inherit the throne of His father, David" (Lk. 1:32), then you either believe that there really is an angel Gabriel, and that as an angel of the Most High God, he would not lie, or you deny the entire Bible.

_________________
A modern day Shunamite woman. (2 Kgs. 4:26)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:13 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 9:23 am
Posts: 3460
Religion: Catholic
Tim Staples gives a very good explantion of this...I'll try to find it for you...I remember hearing it on his tapes...

Give me tonight, and Ill have it for you tomarrow...

_________________
"The only successful method will be that which bases harmony and agreement among Christ's faithful ones upon all the truths, and the whole of the truths, which God has revealed." -Pope Pius XII

Some of these ecumenists are so preoccupied with Christian unity that they are willing to destroy Catholic unity in the name of Christian unity. - Fr. John Hardon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 4:59 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 9:23 am
Posts: 3460
Religion: Catholic
PDUBYA wrote:
Tim Staples gives a very good explantion of this...I'll try to find it for you...I remember hearing it on his tapes...

Give me tonight, and Ill have it for you tomarrow...


Im gonna have to look through the tapes right now through tonight, and ill have it tonight...

_________________
"The only successful method will be that which bases harmony and agreement among Christ's faithful ones upon all the truths, and the whole of the truths, which God has revealed." -Pope Pius XII

Some of these ecumenists are so preoccupied with Christian unity that they are willing to destroy Catholic unity in the name of Christian unity. - Fr. John Hardon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Son of David
PostPosted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 5:39 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 7:06 pm
Posts: 3020
Location: Boise, Idaho
charles21 wrote:
If Joseph was not the biological father of Christ, how could Jesus be considered Son of David?


I've been told that in ancient times adoption was considered of greater rank than biological sonship. It makes a certain amount of sense, since the adopted son is chosen while the biological son is received.

God bless,
Mark

_________________
"You seek me", St. Augustine comments, "for the flesh, not for the spirit. How many seek Jesus for no other purpose than that He may do them good in this present life! [...] Scarcely ever is Jesus sought for Jesus' sake" (In Ioann. Evang, 25, 10).

“therefore is my people led away captive, because they have not knowledge … therefore hath hell enlarged her mouth without any bounds” (Is 5:13-14).

But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved. (Mt 24:13)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 10:29 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:00 am
Posts: 4668
Location: Diocese of Peoria, Illinois
Religion: Catholic
http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/jeconiah.html

_________________
I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen. -- St. Polycarp's prayer of thanksgiving at his martyrdom, 156 A.D.

Baby No. 8 is on the way!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Son of David
PostPosted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 12:59 am 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman

Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 11:07 pm
Posts: 767
charles21 wrote:
I am taking a History of Christianity class being taught by a Jew. (I attend a secular university by the way) This was today's question. I could use some help.

If Joseph was not the biological father of Christ, how could Jesus be considered Son of David?



Here are some points which might be discussed your class, excerpted from an aish.com web article. Due to lack of time I must bow out on this topic, after this post:

[text of excerpt follows]

2. .... it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption. There are two problems with this claim:

a) There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;

b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn't have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30)
To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:

a) There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph's genealogy, not Mary's.

b) Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn't help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Numbers 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

c) Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Samuel 7:14; I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes lineage of David's son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)

d) Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 8:38 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:00 am
Posts: 4668
Location: Diocese of Peoria, Illinois
Religion: Catholic
All of those points are addressed and soundly refuted at
http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/jeconiah.html

There was no curse on Jeconiah's descendants, because according to the prophet Haggai and steadfast Jewish rabbinic tradition, Jeconiah's curse was rescinded on account of his repentance in Babylon. See the rabbinic sources extensively quoted in the article to which I linked. The "Jeconiah's curse" argument is erroneous and is founded on an ignorance of the Jews' own traditions in this matter.

Interestingly enough, some Christians have used Jeconiah's curse to argue that Jesus couldn't have been St. Joseph's biological son, because if He were, he'd have fallen under the curse. But there was no operative curse for Him to fall under. Indeed, the holy and pure Son of God could not fall victim to a curse, even if Jeconiah's lineage were cursed as some have claimed in ignorance.

_________________
I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen. -- St. Polycarp's prayer of thanksgiving at his martyrdom, 156 A.D.

Baby No. 8 is on the way!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:36 am 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman

Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 11:07 pm
Posts: 767
Polycarp wrote:
All of those points are addressed and soundly refuted at
http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/jeconiah.html



Sorry, Polycarp, I've been out on the road for the last several days.

Your source's theory gave me a chuckle. Occasionally, old misreadings re-emerge in a new guise. Of course at the end your source's theory tacitly conceded other, unspoken related problems, being reduced by its own argument to claiming "... one should expect at least a little discontinuity between the [sic] Old and New Covenants." Indeed.

As a side note there are those religions who, in past centuries, have tried to find validation of their particular non-Jewish doctrines within the Talmud. By and large it resulted in a lot of pointless frustration for them, and a lot of book-burning (and people-burning) when they didn't find the validation they so desperately sought. Thank G-d we are out of the Dark Ages, or so we fervently hope.

As a general social premise it is probably good that a religion ~ assuming an ethical monotheism ~ find its validation within its own written and oral traditions. Prima facie, this appears not to be the mindset on which your source's theory is based. Otherwise, Talmudic statements would not be seen as critical; and the theorist would not need to delve into an entire different religion, language, and ways of thinking ~ with all the pitfalls for the uninitiate ~ to find the validation he needs.

Following are three responses on the general topic of Jesus's geneology (as described in non-Jewish texts) and some further insight into the immediate topic. Different sources are indicated by use of capitals, for ease of reading. Bracketed statements are mine.


SOURCE A

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq011.html

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq003.html

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq013.html

In private communication the author of the last of the three articles adds:

"First, are we to presume [this theory] is accepting rabbinic tradition as being valid? [I am sure the significance of this point is not lost on your source. The theory should address the larger implications of this.]

"Second, the midrashic statements are using Jeconiah to illustrate the power of repentance they are not concerned with the actual historic details. This is the difference between peshat and derash.

Jeconiah did indeed repent. And, his descendants were allowed to return from exile. But, notice that no descendant of his ever rules as a king. Honored position and even rulers to some extent but never king. I cannot speak for G-d and don't know if in the future he will rescind the part of the curse concerning reigning as king when the Messiah comes and he might be a descendant of Jeconiah. I do know that there is no biblical statement that it was rescinded.

"But, this is only part of the [theory's] problem. Jesus, according to the New Testament, is not the son of Joseph. Biblically, to be the Messiah one has to be a descendant of David and Solomon through the male line. Adoption does not count. If Joseph had an inherited blood disease would it show up in his supposed adopted son? Davidic kingship is through the bloodline, it does not become transferred by adoption."

[If your source has any more questions I suggest he directly contact the author of the last article, Gerald Segal, using the appropriate "contact us" button on the website.]


SOURCE B

"I will mention two points here:

"1) Jeremiah states that Jeconiah is cursed. In fact, none of his seed become king. His heir is his uncle. Thus in order to state that the curse was lifted they must concede that the Talmud has authority over a basic understanding of Tanach. ...

"2) Based on this opinion in the Talmud, it must have been possible for Jeconiah to receive an atonement by his works, without blood. Discussion over." [Your source will understand what is at stake, here. The theory should address the wider implications of the point just made.]


SOURCE C

"The Talmud cites a single rabbi, R. Yochanan as saying that exile atones for everything, and cites Jeconiah as an example, noting that while Jeremiah says "... write this man as childless... for he will not succeed in his day ... he will not succeed to have one of his descendants sitting on the throne of David, a ruler again in Judah..." Jeconiah did in fact have children.

"But this is not proof that the curse was lifted, for a number of reasons.

"1) It is the opinion of a single rabbi, who uses the case as an illustration of his point about the efficacy of exile to achieve atonement. For those who insist that only blood brings atonement to support this claim is ironic at least. [Again, your source should recognize what is at stake. The theory should address the wider implications of this comment.]

"2) Look carefully at Jeremiah's words. He said, 'write him childless .. for he will not succeed to have a descendant ... rule in Judah' That is to say - it is the fact that none of his descendants would rule that caused him to be called 'childless.' If Jeremiah meant that he would have no descendants, mentioning that none of these non-existent descendants would sit on the throne or rule in Judah is superfluous. So the curse did not literally mean that he would have no children, and therefore the fact that he did have children does not mean that it was lifted.

"3) Zerubabbel never sat on the throne of David and never ruled in Judah. He governed on behalf of Cyrus. Jeremiah said that no descendant of Jeconiah would be a ruler (moshel) and Zerubabbel was not - he was a governer (pachas) (see Hag. 1:1). So there is no reason to say that this part of the decree was cancelled, either.

"The proof goes on to cite a number of other midrashic works, which are also not authoritative. Authority is found in halachic works by consensus of the sages - not homiletical works written by individuals. Just because you can find some rabbis seeming to say that a curse was lifted does not prove that it is the general consensus that it was, much less that it is 'steadfast Jewish tradition.'

"Now R. Yochanan certainly knew this - so how could he use Jeconiah as an example? It's simple - he was speaking homiletically. It is a very common practice in the Talmud. You could point out Berachos 57b as an example:

"'Six things are a good sign for a sick person... [one of which is] seminal discharge, as it is written, he shall see his seed and live long days' (Isaiah 53:10)

"I would be shocked if, in addition to accepting that exile is a source of atonement, they would also agree that the meaning of Isaiah 53 is literally as the Talmud says here :)"


[In closing I might add that an overriding point to be made in this discussion ~ one of those unspoken problems (see above) which your source's theory is incapable of addressing ~ is not Talmudic but of the Torah, a commonly-revered text among us, and is addressed within a recent post of mine on another thread, "How to witness to a messianic Jew." Those adept in Jewish literature will grasp the point, I'm sure. I will leave you and your source to your continued study of Judaism, and I will return to mine.]

[Charles21, this should give you plenty to discuss in your class!
May it be lively.]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:25 pm 
Offline
Middle Management
Middle Management
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 9:15 pm
Posts: 28909
Location: Sacred Heart of Jesus
Religion: Catholic
Stephen,

The Cath101 forum is simply for people to become more informed about the Catholic faith. Its not for debate. If you want to argue against Christianity, this is the place to do so.

_________________
Whence are we to find words enough fully to tell the happiness of that marriage which the Church cements, and the Eucharistic oblation confirms, and the benediction signs and seals; which angels carry back the news of to heaven, which the Father holds as ratified? -Tertullian

Uniformity with the Will of God by St. Alphonsus Liguori


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 9:36 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 9:23 am
Posts: 3460
Religion: Catholic
ahh..found a little bit...Sorry it took so long, it was on my list but not first to do...A little summarization of Tim Staples:

In ancient Israel, You did not have to be related to your father, the king of Israel, by blood, in order to inherit the throne of the father...You just simply had to be the son of the king; even adoption counted.

Plus your father had to die before you could be king. This is why Joseph had to die before Jesus entered his ministry...Note how you dont see Joseph mentioned anymore after Jesus is 12 yrs of age (this doesnt mean he died when he was 12---but, you get what I mean...)

Also, In ancient Isreal, their geneologies were matriarchal while we are patriarchal today. Things were different back then...For example: In order to be considered a Jew, your bloodline mother had to be a Jew...If your father was a Jew and your mother WAS NOT, you were NOT a Jew.

Joseph was the kingly-line (geneology in Matthew), while Mary was the Jewish bloodline (Lukes geneology of Mary) which was necessary for Jesus to be a Jew.

_________________
"The only successful method will be that which bases harmony and agreement among Christ's faithful ones upon all the truths, and the whole of the truths, which God has revealed." -Pope Pius XII

Some of these ecumenists are so preoccupied with Christian unity that they are willing to destroy Catholic unity in the name of Christian unity. - Fr. John Hardon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 9:51 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:00 am
Posts: 4668
Location: Diocese of Peoria, Illinois
Religion: Catholic
PDUBYA, the Jewish genealogies in the Old Testament almost always trace the lineage through the male line, not the female line. Thus, they were not "matriarchal" (by which I suppose you mean "matrilineal"). You're right that one's status as a Jew is dependent on one's mother being Jewish, not one's father, but in terms of inheritance and tribal standing, usually the law or custom was for the patrimony to go from father to son. There were exceptions, of course, but that was the general rule.

Finally, while some think St. Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, he in fact presents it as the genealogy of Joseph, and Julius Africanus said that in his day, the physical kindred of Jesus had a tradition that both St. Matthew and St. Luke presented genealogies of St. Joseph. The explanation in Africanus for their different genealogies is that the line of Jeconiah and the line of David's son Nathan became related through levirate marriage.

_________________
I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen. -- St. Polycarp's prayer of thanksgiving at his martyrdom, 156 A.D.

Baby No. 8 is on the way!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 11:38 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:00 am
Posts: 4668
Location: Diocese of Peoria, Illinois
Religion: Catholic
Quote:
Your source's theory gave me a chuckle.


I had a similar reaction to your sources' responses. They were exactly what I expected they would be. But how else could they respond if they are determined to maintain the fiction that Jeconiah's lineage was permanently cursed, something that, so far as I can tell, was unknown to Judaism until anti-missionary Jewish apologists came up with the argument as a supposed disproof of Jesus' Messiahship?

Quote:
Occasionally, old misreadings re-emerge in a new guise.


Of course that's not the case here. Jewish tradition on Jeconiah's curse being rescinded is amply documented. Can you show the same kind of documentation for the claim that Jeconiah's curse is still in force?

Quote:
Of course at the end your source's theory tacitly conceded other, unspoken related problems, being reduced by its own argument to claiming "... one should expect at least a little discontinuity between the [sic] Old and New Covenants." Indeed.


That's not a tacit concession to anything. And why do you think there was a misuse of the word "the" in the reference to the Old and New Covenants?

Quote:
As a side note there are those religions who, in past centuries, have tried to find validation of their particular non-Jewish doctrines within the Talmud.


Showing that Jewish rabbis and sages have believed that Jeconiah's lineage not only was not permanently cursed, but is in fact the Messianic lineage, is not about finding validation for non-Jewish doctrines within the Talmud. It's about showing that the popular anti-missionary preference for the "Jeconiah's curse" argument is in conflict with the beliefs of Jewish rabbis and sages.

Quote:
By and large it resulted in a lot of pointless frustration for them, and a lot of book-burning (and people-burning) when they didn't find the validation they so desperately sought. Thank God we are out of the Dark Ages, or so we fervently hope.


The book burning refers to burning of the Talmud, but I'm afraid history does not support the claim of "a lot" of Jews being burned at the stake.

Quote:
As a general social premise it is probably good that a religion ~ assuming an ethical monotheism ~ find its validation within its own written and oral traditions. Prima facie, this appears not to be the mindset on which your source's theory is based.


Again, it's not about Christianity being validated by the Talmud. It's about the "Jeconiah's curse" argument being shown to be not what earlier Jewish sages thought about Jeconiah.


Quote:
Otherwise, Talmudic statements would not be seen as critical;


How does one go about showing what Jewish tradition entails without reference to Talmudic statements?

Quote:
"First, are we to presume [this theory] is accepting rabbinic tradition as being valid? [I am sure the significance of this point is not lost on your source. The theory should address the larger implications of this.]


It is not necessary to accept the validity of rabbinic tradition in order to show what a particular rabbinic tradition has been in the past.

Quote:
"Second, the midrashic statements are using Jeconiah to illustrate the power of repentance they are not concerned with the actual historic details. This is the difference between peshat and derash.


Interesting. Sounds like the liberal theologians who claim that even though Jesus wasn't really resurrected, the Christian message is still meaningful and valid.

The trouble with this claim is that the Jewish sources cited show no trace of an understanding that Jeconiah's curse wasn't really rescinded, but that the story of Jeconiah's curse being rescinded is just a nice fairy tale to illustrate the power of repentance.

Quote:
Jeconiah did indeed repent. And, his descendants were allowed to return from exile. But, notice that no descendant of his ever rules as a king.


Until Jesus, that is. :wink:

Quote:
Honored position and even rulers to some extent but never king. I cannot speak for God and don't know if in the future he will rescind the part of the curse concerning reigning as king when the Messiah comes and he might be a descendant of Jeconiah. I do know that there is no biblical statement that it was rescinded.


Nothing explicit, but Haggai's statement about Zerubbabel is mighty suggestive, as previous rabbis have pointed out. But then there is also no biblical statement that Jeconiah's curse is still in force or remained in force after Jeconiah's repentance, so that argument's a wash.

Quote:
"But, this is only part of the [theory's] problem. Jesus, according to the New Testament, is not the son of Joseph.


False. The New Testament calls Jesus the son of Joseph. Therefore, according to the New Testament, Jesus is the son of Joseph.

Quote:
Biblically, to be the Messiah one has to be a descendant of David and Solomon through the male line. Adoption does not count.


No problem there. Jesus' father Joseph was descended in the male line from Solomon, son of David, and Jesus was not the adopted son of Joseph -- he was, under Jewish law, the son of Joseph, because Jewish law does not take account of miracles or unproven and unproveable accusations of adultery.

Quote:
"1) Jeremiah states that Jeconiah is cursed. In fact, none of his seed become king. His heir is his uncle. Thus in order to state that the curse was lifted they must concede that the Talmud has authority over a basic understanding of Tanach. ...


There is a confusion here of two different things: 1) a review of a traditional Jewish interpretation of Scripture, and 2) an acceptance of the Talmud, which mentions that interpretation, as an authority over a basic understanding of the Jewish canon of the Old Testament. One can agree with an interpretation found in the Talmud without believing the entire Talmud is authoritative. The point in bringing up the rabbinic citations is to show the existence of the traditional interpretaton throughout the history of post-Temple Judaism. There is no need to accept the authority of the entire Talmud in order to agree with one scriptural interpretation found in the Talmud. Protestants, for example, do not have any difficulty agreeing with Catholics on the doctrine of the Trinity, and agreeing with the logical proofs and scriptural evidences adduced by Catholics in favor of the Trinity doctrine -- but that doesn't mean Protestants are logically required to accept the entirety of the Catholic faith.

Quote:
"2) Based on this opinion in the Talmud, it must have been possible for Jeconiah to receive an atonement by his works, without blood. Discussion over." [Your source will understand what is at stake, here. The theory should address the wider implications of the point just made.]


For some reason, this source seems to think that Christianity teaches that atonement for sin is impossible without blood. That's a misinterpretation of the doctrine found in the Book of Hebrews.

Quote:
"The Talmud cites a single rabbi, R. Yochanan as saying that exile atones for everything, and cites Jeconiah as an example,


And how many rabbis does the Talmud cite in favor of the claim that Jeconiah's curse was never rescinded?

Quote:
"1) It is the opinion of a single rabbi, who uses the case as an illustration of his point about the efficacy of exile to achieve atonement.


Incorrect. It's not the opinion of a single rabbi. The Jewish sources cited tell us that it is the opinion of (or was an opinion that was known to, or both) R. Yochanan, R. Ze'era, R. Samuel bar Isaac, R. Aha Arika, R. Abba bar R. Papi, R. Aha bar Abun bar Binyamin, R. Tanhuma, R. Yoshua ben Levi, Radak, Malbim, and R. A. J. Rosenberg. How many ancient rabbis and sages believed that Jeconiah's lineage was permanently cursed?

Quote:
For those who insist that only blood brings atonement to support this claim is ironic at least.


As I said, Christianity does not teach that only blood brings atonement. But even if it did, it would not be inappropriate for a Christian to notice that what anti-missionaries are saying about Jeconiah's curse is not what the sages of old said about Jeconiah's curse.

Quote:
If Jeremiah meant that he would have no descendants, mentioning that none of these non-existent descendants would sit on the throne or rule in Judah is superfluous. So the curse did not literally mean that he would have no children, and therefore the fact that he did have children does not mean that it was lifted.


True enough -- Jeconiah's curse need not be interpreted literally to mean he would never have children. My source said as much.

Quote:
"3) Zerubabbel never sat on the throne of David and never ruled in Judah. He governed on behalf of Cyrus. Jeremiah said that no descendant of Jeconiah would be a ruler (moshel) and Zerubabbel was not - he was a governer (pachas) (see Hag. 1:1). So there is no reason to say that this part of the decree was cancelled, either.


That's really reaching there. Governors are not rulers. Right.

But what I am wondering is if your source is disagreeing with the rabbinic tradition that Jeconiah's curse was rescinded. I know that in Judaism you can cite one rabbi against another -- as the old joke goes, if you get ten rabbis in a room you'll hear eleven different opinions about what scripture means. What is your source's rabbinic source for his belief that Jeconiah's lineage is cursed -- or does he have one? And anyway, since the belief that Jeconiah's curse was rescinded is amply documented in Jewish tradition, it follows that a Jew may believe the curse was rescinded. That means Judaism does not teach that Jeconiah lineage is cursed, or was cursed at the time when the Messiah came into the world. That means the argument from Jeconiah's curse carries no force, since it is just the opinion of some Jews and not a normative belief of Judaism. Jews are not required to believe that Jeconiah's curse wasn't rescinded. Why, then, should anyone listen to your Jewish sources as opposed to the Jewish sources cited in my source? Who says the opinions of your Jewish sources are any more likely to be correct than the opinions of the Jewish sources cited in my source?

Quote:
"The proof goes on to cite a number of other midrashic works, which are also not authoritative.


They may not be authoritative, but they illustrate the longevity of this traditional interpretation.

Quote:
Authority is found in halachic works by consensus of the sages - not homiletical works written by individuals. Just because you can find some rabbis seeming to say that a curse was lifted does not prove that it is the general consensus that it was, much less that it is 'steadfast Jewish tradition.'


Of course. And just because you can find some rabbis saying the curse wasn't lifted does not prove that is the general consensus, or even that it has any traceable lineage in Jewish tradition. It is interesting, however, that quite a few rabbis didn't seem to know that Jeconiah's curse wasn't really rescinded and that Jeconiah's lineage isn't really the Messianic lineage on account of the curse.

So, any way you look at it, you've got authoritative or respected Jewish sources attesting to an interpretation of scripture that is the opposite of the "Jeconiah's curse" argument against Jesus' Messiahship. Please present the ancient rabbinic sources that testify to the claim that Jeconiah's curse wasn't rescinded, if there are any such sources.

_________________
I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen. -- St. Polycarp's prayer of thanksgiving at his martyrdom, 156 A.D.

Baby No. 8 is on the way!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Son of David
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 11:50 pm 
Offline
Apostle of Iraq
Apostle of Iraq
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 1:06 am
Posts: 20306
Location: Iraq, Sadr City
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th degree Knight of Columbus
mgross wrote:
charles21 wrote:
If Joseph was not the biological father of Christ, how could Jesus be considered Son of David?


I've been told that in ancient times adoption was considered of greater rank than biological sonship. It makes a certain amount of sense, since the adopted son is chosen while the biological son is received.

God bless,
Mark


Ya, check out the movie "The Ten Commandments"! Charlton Heston almost earned the throne due to his deeds, he was not the son of Pharoah!

_________________
http://s203.photobucket.com/albums/aa16 ... reedom.flv

*NEW YOUTUBE CHANNEL* http://www.youtube.com/defendercatholic *NEW YOUTUBE CHANNEL*
http://catholicscomehome.org/epic/epic120.html
Ephesians 6:10-17
1 Timothy 3:15


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 12:20 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:00 am
Posts: 4668
Location: Diocese of Peoria, Illinois
Religion: Catholic
Ummmmm, CD? You do know that "The Ten Commandments" was a movie, don't you? Please tell me you're joking.

_________________
I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen. -- St. Polycarp's prayer of thanksgiving at his martyrdom, 156 A.D.

Baby No. 8 is on the way!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 9:05 am 
Offline
Apostle of Iraq
Apostle of Iraq
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 1:06 am
Posts: 20306
Location: Iraq, Sadr City
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th degree Knight of Columbus
Polycarp wrote:
Ummmmm, CD? You do know that "The Ten Commandments" was a movie, don't you? Please tell me you're joking.


Of course! But it made that point very well!

_________________
http://s203.photobucket.com/albums/aa16 ... reedom.flv

*NEW YOUTUBE CHANNEL* http://www.youtube.com/defendercatholic *NEW YOUTUBE CHANNEL*
http://catholicscomehome.org/epic/epic120.html
Ephesians 6:10-17
1 Timothy 3:15


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 3:59 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:00 am
Posts: 4668
Location: Diocese of Peoria, Illinois
Religion: Catholic
Whew! You had me worried there for a second.

Anyway, I thought I'd share something about the Jewish tradition that Jeconiah's curse was rescinded on account of his repentance. Not long ago, interestingly enough, there was a Jewish counter-missionary website that apparently had a discussion of Jeconiah's curse in the context of the genealogy of Jesus. Here's something I found in a Google search:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a ... _id=00AxkX

Here's the relevant excerpt:

Quote:
I found this other Jewish counter-missionary site which points out that according to Jewish tradition, the curse of Jeconiah has been lifted. It even suggests that his grandson Zerubabbel is expected to be an ancestor of the Messiah. It is http://www.messiahtruth.com/curse.html. Warning: it is highly critical of the gospel genealogies.
-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 21, 2003.


However, if you clink on that "curse.html" hyperlink, there's nothing there anymore. Instead, the "Messiah Truth" website now has this discussion of Jesus' genealogy, in which the "Jews For Judaism" position on Jeconiah's curse (i.e., that it wasn't rescinded) is advocated. Notice that they don't breathe a word about the venerable old Jewish tradition that Jeconiah's curse was rescinded:

http://www.messiahtruth.com/jesusgen.html

_________________
I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen. -- St. Polycarp's prayer of thanksgiving at his martyrdom, 156 A.D.

Baby No. 8 is on the way!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:35 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:00 am
Posts: 4668
Location: Diocese of Peoria, Illinois
Religion: Catholic
Aha! I used the Wayback Machine to find the old "Messiah Truth" discussion of Jeconiah's curse:

http://web.archive.org/web/200410181545 ... curse.html

Here's a telling admission from the author of that discussion (emphasis added):

Quote:
I would like to open this section by saying for the record, that the teaching here tonight does not contradict what any other Jew is saying about the Curse of Jeconiah.  Jews only apply the curse of Jeconiah to refute the New Testament genealogy because of how the authors of the New Testament handle the curse, and not because Jews still think this curse is in effect.

 
So, this Jewish writer said Jews don't necessarily think the curse of Jeconiah is in effect, but use Jeconiah's curse as an apologetic tool because of the way the New Testament authors supposedly handle the curse. Trouble is, the New Testament authors don't "handle the curse" at all. They never mention it. Instead, St. Matthew simply presents a genealogy tracing Jesus back to David through Jeconiah, without mentioning anything about Jeconiah and his descendants supposedly being cursed.

The bottom line is that when Jewish apologists use Jeconiah's curse as an argument, the wind is taken right out of their sails when you find out that a respectable line of sages and rabbis said Jeconiah's curse was rescinded centuries before the birth of Christ. The argument simply loses all it's force. "Jesus can't be the Messiah, because of Jeconiah's curse!" "But Jewish sages said Jeconiah was forgiven and the curse lifted." "Err, umm, uh . . . Pay no attention to those rabbis behind the curtain!!!" ::):

Anyway, both this Jewish writer and my source reviewed almost the same citations of venerable Jewish texts showing the old tradition or legend that Jeconiah's curse was rescinded. He seemed to think that those citations show that Jews don't necessarily believe Jeconiah's curse is still in force. I hate to say it, but somehow I suspect Jewish counter-missionaries aren't being entirely honest in their use of Jeconiah's curse as an apologetic argument.

_________________
I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen. -- St. Polycarp's prayer of thanksgiving at his martyrdom, 156 A.D.

Baby No. 8 is on the way!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:20 pm 
Offline
Middle Management
Middle Management
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 9:15 pm
Posts: 28909
Location: Sacred Heart of Jesus
Religion: Catholic
This has been moved here from the apologetics forum.

_________________
Whence are we to find words enough fully to tell the happiness of that marriage which the Church cements, and the Eucharistic oblation confirms, and the benediction signs and seals; which angels carry back the news of to heaven, which the Father holds as ratified? -Tertullian

Uniformity with the Will of God by St. Alphonsus Liguori


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1   [ 20 posts ]   


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


Jump to: