The Problem of Self

The Catholic encyclopedia says of their assertion that Mary's father was Joachim...

True, this tradition seems to rest ultimately on the so-called "Gospel of James", the "Gospel of the Nativity of the Blessed Mary", and the Pseudo-Matthew, or "Book of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Childhood of the Saviour"; and this origin is likely to rouse well-founded suspicions.

Comment:
These books mentioned above were written if not a few hundred years after the Gospels.

I might also add the it is the Bible that says the "Mighty man" of Mary is Joseph not me.

Also I was incorrect when I said that both genealogies Matthew/Luke were from Mary... The one in Luke is from Joseph the "husband" of Mary... Please excuse my error... It has been a few years since I have breached this subject.

This research explains this. http://rexred.com/Royal.html (this took me a while to put in digital form I hope you all appreciate the effort)

After studying this, I tend to accept this study over the research done in the Catholic encyclopedia on the subject of Mary's father... It was not Joachim but Joseph. I have used my honest intellect to decide and not personal bias...

Xior wrote:

there is no probelm of self. becuase i have no problem with my self, so no probelm with self exists.

Sounds a bit farsighted, like it is because, I say so.

RexRed wrote:

The Catholic encyclopedia says of their assertion that Mary's father was Joachim...

True, this tradition seems to rest ultimately on the so-called "Gospel of James", the "Gospel of the Nativity of the Blessed Mary", and the Pseudo-Matthew, or "Book of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Childhood of the Saviour"; and this origin is likely to rouse well-founded suspicions.

Well, given that the bible doesn't name him at all (except for one possible mention, as I'll discuss below), the apocryphal gospels are all we have.

RexRed wrote:

Comment:
These books mentioned above were written if not a few hundred years after the Gospels.

See above.

RexRed wrote:

I might also add the it is the Bible that says the "Mighty man" of Mary is Joseph not me.

Also I was incorrect when I said that both genealogies Matthew/Luke were from Mary... The one in Luke is from Joseph the "husband" of Mary... Please excuse my error... It has been a few years since I have breached this subject.

That's a rather idiosyncratic interpretation. If the genealogies in both Matthew and Luke are of Mary, then Mary has one screwed up family tree, since the lines diverge one generation below the common ancestor, David, and do not converge again until Joseph. Now, that could simply mean that, at some point, a couple of Mary's ancestors might have intermarried, but then if she was the product of one unbroken Davidic line, why mention two? That's especially true given that the line mentioned in Matthew is tainted by the curse of Jeconiah. And considering that Joseph, whom you identify as Mary's father, is provided with two different fathers by the evangelists, we must face the unpleasant conclusion that he was the product of a homosexual union, an event which would have been nearly as miraculous (and worthy of note) as Christ's own provenance.

The distinction you attempt to make between Mary's royal lineage and her "commoner" lineage is simply unpersuasive: if Jesus was fulfilling the prophecy in 2 Sam. 7: 12-16 it really didn't matter if he was in the royal line or not, since the prophecy merely identifies David's "heir" as God's favored one (and since no one could inherit David's throne through Jeconiah's line, Jesus would have been a commoner whether he traced his lineage according to Matthew or to Luke).

In short, there is only one place in the bible where Mary's father might be mentioned: in Luke 3:23, where "Heli" is identified as Joseph's father. Since many who have pondered the competing genealogies interpret the relationship in this context to mean "father-in-law" (one possible explanation is that Heli "adopted" Joseph since Mary had no brothers), then Mary's father's name was "Heli," or, according to tradition, "Joachim" (or, as the Catholic Encyclopedia entry has it, "Eliachim, i.e. Jeho-achim").

RexRed wrote:

This research explains this. http://rexred.com/Royal.html (this took me a while to put in digital form I hope you all appreciate the effort)

After studying this, I tend to accept this study over the research done in the Catholic encyclopedia on the subject of Mary's father... It was not Joachim but Joseph. I have used my honest intellect to decide and not personal bias...

I appreciate the effort, but I am not convinced.

Rex

xior is promoting "alternative communication" with an extension of his vacuous thread "I know everything".

RexRed wrote:

Xior wrote:

there is no probelm of self. becuase i have no problem with my self, so no probelm with self exists.

Sounds a bit farsighted, like it is because, I say so.

no its more like, i only care about myself, so i don't really care to go into a long discussion about it, since it doesn't concern me.

Frank,

You do not have to have a doctorate in theology to use the thing between your ears...

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

Luke 3:23
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,

Comment:
Which of the two were Joseph's father? Heli or Jacob? She did not have two husbands named Joseph...

The Roman Catholic Encyclopedia goes outside the revelation given to the first century apostles for answers.. They do not address any of the points in the article above... Why? Possibly because they are so used to tradition that they have not even thought about the possibility. regardless, the truth exists over and above their assertions.

My "source" is the Bible and if you study it you will come to the same conclusions.

Do I need to post the scriptures and the same genealogies again? If you are just going on blind faith and allegiance to the Roman Catholic encyclopedia, how can I possibly help?

I have given you my sources before on Abuzz and you did not lift an eyebrow then, why now, if not to just slander his name?

I am not into the attacks on character but the weight and the substance of his words.

I am not here to slander the Roman catholic church in light of their seemingly barbaric history I expect likewise.

RexRed wrote:

Frank,

You do not have to have a doctorate in theology to use the thing between your ears...

No I don't...and to be honest, I don't even know what a doctorate in theology to use the thing between your ears...is.

Unless, of course, that is merely a mangled sentence.

Comment:
A doctorate in theology is what one gets when they devote many years of their lives to studying the Bible "themselves" as opposed to one who thinks they know it all and only know what others have to says about it.

Quote:

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

Luke 3:23
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,

Comment:
Which of the two were Joseph's father? Heli or Jacob? She did not have two husbands named Joseph...

Yes, Rex...you brought that up earlier...and I responded to it.

It may be nothing more than one of the many, many, many obvious mistakes and inconsistencies contained in the Bible. And as I also appended earlier, I do not fault the book on that account...the same thing happens in almost all books of myths and fables.


Once again...you are presenting what purports to be "research"...but even if every item you have presented is exactly correct...that does not mean that the material applies in this particular instance.

And to present the work of one unnamed individual whom you happen to know as authoritative and adequate to discard all other scholarship on the subject...is ludicrous.

But apparently you cannot see that.

Comment:

Frank it is a myth and a mistake when it disagrees with your version of the truth. Have you ever considered that the error is on YOUR understanding of it and not in the revelation of the Bible? This is the whole "purpose" of "research"... Now who is twisting the Word? You accept errors and I go the extra mile to look for what it is really saying. I give the Bible the benefit of the doubt and search where you and your cohorts just assign meanings to fit their own "tradition".

Quote:

The Roman Catholic Encyclopedia goes outside the revelation given to the first century apostles for answers.. They do not address any of the points in the article above... Why? Possibly because they are so used to tradition that they have not even thought about the possibility. regardless, the truth exists over and above their assertions.

Oh my...so the Catholic Encyclopedia does not address the points raised in an article of an obscure individual who has no books available to be read!

Isn't that just like them!!!!

Rex, I keep a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia (Roman is not part of its title, by the way) and I find it useful for lots of things. It is a fine research tool. And of course it "goes outside the revelations given to first century apostles for answers." If it didn't...it wouldn't be an encyclopedia...it would be a New Testament.

Gimme a break, will ya.

Comment
Who ever said they were obscure? A hint they (this person) traveled with Billy Braham and Oral Roberts in the early days and Billy Graham once said of this man that he knew more about the spirit than he did. His books were withdrawn world wide by his former ministry when he died... They were only sold by this ministry and were distributed internationally. They were withdrawn because of a few errors that this ministry has a spotless record when it comes to publishing the truth. They did not want a single error in publication regarding their doctrine. They did not want the man canonized so they withdrew and recalled his books of which I kept... Since then the ministry has had a turbulent period that has just recently resurfaced.

Also I believe in almost every theological library across the country and world you can find at least one or more of his books... The problem is they (the Roman catholic church) are too stepped in their tradition to look elsewhere. I have seen a very slow transition over the years to this doctrine over the older doctrines of the past. This is due to people like me who were part of the many thousands of believers scattered over the world from this denomination. Very special people in their own right.

This ministry found me in obscure little old back woods down east Maine (over 20 years ago) where in my town there are still no "catholic" churches at all, only protestant ones (which I believe are much closer to the message of the Bible the than the "Roman catholic church"). That is what protestant means "for the word" or "pro testament" as opposed to being for tradition and for being "talked out of" what the Bible actually says...

And actually Roman is part of their title... some do not believe they are the "world church" (which is the meaning of catholic) and I am one of them. They are the "Roman" world church. I believe the "world church" is far from this encyclopedia for some of the very reasons I have addressed in the posts here. The Greek Orthodox also goes by the name of catholic church too... So which one is the "world church"? When you have an answer for that then I may give it some consideration. The "world church" has not really yet come and will not come till the integrity of the Bible is listened to and given much more respect, consideration and not given a seat to "tradition" and corrupted by the apocrypha.

Quote:

My "source" is the Bible and if you study it you will come to the same conclusions.

Yes…that book put together by early Christians who had their own prejudices about what should and should not be contained in it.

Comment:
You obviously do not believe that "revelation" comes from God not man... How could I expect you to understand the "integrity" of The Word...

Quote:

Do I need to post the scriptures and the same genealogies again? If you are just going on blind faith and allegiance to the Roman Catholic encyclopedia, how can I possibly help?

Jesus Christ, man, what do you eat or smoke that causes such distortion of thinking.

How on earth can you accuse me of "blind faith and allegiance to the Roman Catholic encyclopedia?"

Are you mad?

Comment:
Frank,
You can deny it but there is a little bit of allegiance left over from your early days as an alter boy... hehe Take it from me someone standing outside and looking in... you have bias that leans toward the Roman catholic church when it suits you... Even your hatred of the old testament God reflects their erroneous viewpoint of the scriptures.

Quote:

I have given you my sources before on Abuzz and you did not lift an eyebrow then, why now, if not to just slander his name?

I do not know what you are talking about here.

Quote:

I am not into the attacks on character but the weight and the substance of his words.

I'm just trying to find out what the hell is the source of your supposed research, Rex. For all I know, this guy ran a bar down the street from where you live….or drove a cab in New York City.

Comment:
I will give my sources at a later date... I am not sure of the reasons you want my sources (when you have rejected them on face value anyway) to admire and learn from them or to insult them. They are too close to my heart to have you rip them to shreds in you haphazard insulting spiritually juvenile way. I am not saying that you do not know more about the Bible than most... but you have a long way to go my friend when it comes to "truth"...

Quote:

I am not here to slander the Roman catholic church in light of their seemingly barbaric history I expect likewise.

Are you under some delusion that I am trying to defend the Catholic Church here?

What is this all about??????

I do not accept the Catholic Encyclopedia's interpretation because in the end it leaves Jesus with no true "blood" lineage... The Bible says he would have to have a blood lineage to qualify as the royal king successor of David's throne.

There is no scripture that says he would be a commoner because of a so called "cursed" link in the bloodline. David himself could have been considered a "cursed" ancestor considering some of the things David did... along with many others along the way starting with Adam and Eve who were surely "cursed"... Jesus came to remove these "curses"...

Simply reading the Bible and seeing the word husband is intended to mean Father in that case clears up the problem of "no genealogy". It also corrects the math of the 14 generation thing and substantiated the new testament claims that he was of the seed of David... None of this "unraveling" happens by the catholic view.

As for the curse of the seed of Jeconiah's I am not convinced that that negates Jesus being King... God is always picking the most unusual of the offspring to rise and be the heir to carry on the bloodline... Examples: nathan (after Abimelek killed 50 so of his brothers to be king but left Nathan (a half brother)), Again, Jesus came to lift "curses" on people as God's plan of redemption.

Also that is not a right assumption that Mary's father "adopted" Joseph as a son when the apocrypha has Joseph as an "old man" when he married Mary...

As you can see I am a biblical purist I believe in the Bible as my sole and only source of faith and practice. Where they can be talked out of the words of the Bible by tradition and history and extraneous writings... I do read history but I do not take it over the Bible and teach it to others when it contradicts what the Bible says... This I believe they do and have done for centuries..

RexRed wrote:

I do not accept the Catholic Encyclopedia's interpretation because in the end it leaves Jesus with no true "blood" lineage... The Bible says he would have to have a blood lineage to qualify as the royal king successor of David's throne.

But he did: through his mother, as explained in Luke.

RexRed wrote:

There is no scripture that says he would be a commoner because of a so called "cursed" link in the bloodline. David himself could have been considered a "cursed" ancestor considering some of the things David did... along with many others along the way starting with Adam and Eve who were surely "cursed"... Jesus came to remove these "curses"...

David may have been a bad guy in many ways, but Jeconiah was cursed by God (Jeremiah 22:24-30): "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." That seems pretty clear-cut.

RexRed wrote:

Simply reading the Bible and seeing the word husband is intended to mean Father in that case clears up the problem of "no genealogy". It also corrects the math of the 14 generation thing and substantiated the new testament claims that he was of the seed of David... None of this "unraveling" happens by the catholic view.

No, it creates an entirely new set of problems.

RexRed wrote:

As for the curse of the seed of Jeconiah's I am not convinced that that negates Jesus being King... God is always picking the most unusual of the offspring to rise and be the heir to carry on the bloodline... Examples: nathan (after Abimelek killed 50 so of his brothers to be king but left Nathan (a half brother)), Again, Jesus came to lift "curses" on people as God's plan of redemption.

If Nathan was an heir of David, then the lineage described in Luke is a royal bloodline, not a common one.

RexRed wrote:

Also that is not a right assumption that Mary's father "adopted" Joseph as a son when the apocrypha has Joseph as an "old man" when he married Mary...

This is a curious assertion, given your subsequent statement:

RexRed wrote:

As you can see I am a biblical purist I believe in the Bible as my sole and only source of faith and practice. Where they can be talked out of the words of the Bible by tradition and history and extraneous writings... I do read history but I do not take it over the Bible and teach it to others when it contradicts what the Bible says... This I believe they do and have done for centuries..

Either you accept that Joseph was an old man, based on nothing but the apocryphal gospels (in which case you should accept that Mary's father's name was Joachim), or you reject the apocryphal gospels (in which case you should put no credence in the tale that Joseph was an old man when he married Mary).

Behold, I am coming soon to pay everyone for what he has done...

Rex,

Your reliance on "word magic" would not be out of place as an exhibit on the "truth and language" thread. The gematric analysis of the "Book of Revelation" is an interesting example of how mathematics was utilised as a meta-language to create "gnostic truths" below the surface of the text.

RexRed wrote:

Behold, I am coming soon to pay everyone for what he has done...

Could you pay me in cash? I'm having some problems with the IRS.