The sad but honest truth is that worldwide in the overwhelming majority of cultures for a Long time up until fairly recently(think voting and equal rights), women just didn't count.
Yep, originally, the husband bought the wife like a piece of property. Seemingly, in scriptures, it looks as though it evolved into a gift? Really strange contradictions... we find within the bible. Paul would not even allow a woman to teach..... she must remain silent.... and have no authority over a man. Yet, genealogy of Jesus through a woman. However, the very reason that Paul wrote it, that it came to mind, rather than out of the blue, was that he must have observed the very thing on the rise, the potential of it. LOL, Paul would have been stoned by women if he lived in this day
https://christianity.stackexchange....ith-the-names-of-the-ancestors-of/13702#13702
Regarding this, it was also noted that the disciples spoke above their expected potential. And they said of Jesus "where did he get such wisdom". Since the legitity of these writing is in debate, one might think this is added context, after all, what would we expect them to say. Is it any surprise that Solomon thought he was so wise. However, apart from literal words, the context is that people took note of Jesus. They did listen to him. They did struggle to decide if he might be the coming Christ. The context over the resistance he encountered.... as well as those that believed... is clearly there. It's hard to manipulate context. As Erhman would say, writers tend to only write about the best of the story when they make stuff up. Rarely would they spend so much time writing about the resistance to him
I agree
I agree. Descendant of David.... one might could argue... if a legal adoption took place. But I expect "bloodline" is used somewhere. And that can't be done through adoption. I don't think God would have made the Christ "seemingly" as Luke put it, in any way. Their reason for not believing was never his bloodline. Which would have invited context about this potential dispute into the text. It was his offensiveness. He was highly offensive. I wonder if he was actually this offensive, or if the gospels embellish this? Imagine someone, a carpenter, coming on the scene, and telling the highest of religion, the Joel Olsteen, John McCarther, etc, that they are white washed tombs. I do realize that the gospel, the new covenant, means no one is good enough. But in their defense, they likely thought they were trying hard to please God, as Saul/Paul once did.
And if adoption was part of the deal wouldn't Moses be the Son of Pharoah and Moses children and their children and their children's children the descendants of Pharoah?
Remember we are talking about Israel. Not Orthodox Jews.
Ok I missed it. Please point me to the answer of this; the direct blood descendant from the fathers side requirement, or better yet, just point me to the prophecy itself. It should have the requirement there. I’d like to see if it’s a prophecy or traditional requirement.
Ok Spotlite, we will go with your adoption twist.
LOL, God put that there for you Bullet knowing you would one day use it. Just like he said over and over, "God is one". LOL, he knew that one day, they would be saying he was three in one. Ever thought about that? Just why would God declare he is one. Would that not be assumed. He did not say, he was the only one. He said "one".
There are many interpretations from his human nature to the Gospel.......but none for it meaning a fatherly only blood lineage.
I will cut the chase. Outside of tradition or custom......there is no requirement for a fatherly blood lineage, even the Jews themselves are not in full agreement of paternal verses maternal.
Can’t Mary be the fruit?
