Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcrdcf.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!petsd!pesnta!hplabs!sdcrdcf!glenn
From: glenn@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Glenn C. Scott)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: About Literalism: in what sense is Jesus son of David
Message-ID: <2194@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Jul-85 16:19:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.2194
Posted: Thu Jul 25 16:19:41 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 31-Jul-85 02:11:15 EDT
References: <1278@uwmacc.UUCP> <615@cybvax0.UUCP> <1293@uwmacc.UUCP> <940@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: glenn@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Glenn C. Scott)
Organization: System Development Corp. R+D, Santa Monica
Lines: 38
Summary: 

In article: <940@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes:

>In article <1293@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes:
>>> [Mike Huybensz]
>>> Then how do you account for the fact that in Matt there are 26 generations
>>> between David and Joseph and that in Luke there are 41?  Each with a
>>> "begat" or "son of" between?  That can't be accounted for by name changes.

>>> Matt: Joseph, (9 ommitted), Zerub'babel, Sheal'tiel, (14 ommitted), David.
>>> Luke: Joseph, (18 ommitted), Zerub'babel, Sheal'tiel, (20 ommitted), David.

>>My posting was only a hypothesis.  It seems to have been disproven by
>>another posting.  However, I'll address the point of your remarks,
>>since they show your over-literalism.  :-)

>>"Begat" and "son of" do not always mean "directly".  It may mean, and
>>sometimes *does* mean, more distant descendants.

>This strikes me as really stretching.  One normally goes one generation at a
>time when establishing a lineage.  It's also not at all clear why it's
>really very important to establish that both lineages are correct (or
>indeed, that either is correct).

  I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  Really stretching what ?  There are
other cases in the Old Testament of reciting a lineage and excluding
individuals of no great importance.  It's probably not good to automatically
assume that if the geneologits books are not like yours that something is wrong.

  One of the criteria for being the Messiah is that the Messiah has to be a
decendant of David.  Therefore it's important to establish the geneology of
Jesus to determine whether Jesus was or was not a descendant of David.

  The only reason I've been able to come up with for having both the lineage of
Joseph *and* Mary recorded is to simply show that no matter which side of the
parents you chose to establish ancestry Jesus' father and mother both qualify
as decendants of David.

Glenn