[awareness]

Okay ... ya asked fer it. Before I get started I have to admit that I have never understood this problem of the father of Jesus, not growing up in the Baptist church, while in the local church, or since. There's been no answer that's been satisfactory. To me the Bible is just unclear about it.

Originally Posted by Ohio

My mother was "shocked" by many things I did, yet she was there when I was born. Does that mean she don't know who my Dad was?

lol ...

Originally Posted by bro Ohio

Take note that this event in the temple was 12 plus years later, with 6 other "normal" siblings coming along in the interim, and other than complete obedience to His earthly parents in Nazareth, Jesus had done absolutely nothing to draw attention to His real identity.

That we know of. Why do you think people had to invent all the Infancy Gospels, in order to fill in the glaring blanks that are missing? We don't even know what made Jesus laugh.

Originally Posted by bro Ohio

Perhaps you should stop reading the Bible with the "assistance" of the likes of Bart Ehrman. That will surely confuse you alright.

Been reading the Bible longer than Ehrman has been on the earth. And been confused that long too. Therefore, there's no causal link there.

Originally Posted by bro Ohio

Matthew and Luke don't have to "agree" on genealogy. Jesus grew up for 30 years as the the son of Joseph, the "Son of Man." That's how He referred to Himself.

So Son of Man refers to Jesus' humanity, that of being born "of man?" As opposed to "Son of Woman?" (If not of Joseph then wouldn't it be Son of Woman?) And it's not referring to "Son of Man" for seeking to reference/link the prophets and Daniel? The meaning of the term Son of Man has never been clear to me. The meaning seems to be a moving target.

Originally Posted by bro Ohio

As such, He also took on his father's lineage.

But not the biological lineage? Why the genealogy of Joseph then? No link to king David there. No Messiah there? What's Lee got to say about it?

Originally Posted by bro Ohio

In this matter, I would highly recommend Lee's footnotes in the Recovery Version about the genealogy. I know you got problems with Lee, but you can overlook them this one time.

Well you could have done the work. Then I'd know for certain what footnotes on genealogy by Lee you are thinking of.

But I'll give it a try. I'll give Witness Lee a break, and a chance. I needed help tho. So I called Bart Ehrman. I figured he's such an expert on all things Christianity that he's got to be the world expert on Lee too.

But seriously, I called bro Zeek. He has the RcV on Kindle. We guessed at what footnotes you meant. Here's what we found:


Matthew:
Mt 1: 162a Joseph - Luke 1: 27; 2: 4; Matt. 1: 18; cf. Luke 3: 23 At this point the record of this genealogy does not say, “Joseph begot Jesus,” which is similar to what is said of all the foregoing persons; it says, “Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus.” Jesus was born of Mary, and not of Joseph, since it was prophesied that Christ would be the seed of the woman and would be born of a virgin (Gen. 3: 15; Isa. 7: 14). Christ could not have been born of Joseph because Joseph was a man and a descendant of Jeconiah, none of whose descendants could inherit the throne of David (Jer. 22: 28-30). However, Mary was a virgin and a descendant of David (Luke 1: 27, 31-32); as such, she was the right person of whom Christ should be born. The marriage of Joseph and Mary brought Joseph into relationship with Christ and united into one the two lines of Christ’s genealogy for the bringing in of Christ, as shown in the chart on p. 9 in the printed edition. This chart shows that the generation of Jesus Christ begins from God and continues until it reaches Jesus. It proceeds from God to Adam, from Adam to Abraham, from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, and on to David. After David it divides into two lines, the first running from Nathan to Mary and the second from Solomon to Joseph. Eventually, these two lines are brought together by the marriage of Mary and Joseph, to bring in Jesus Christ. In this way Christ was apparently a descendant of Jeconiah, who seemed to be in the line of the royal family; actually, He was not a descendant of Jeconiah, Joseph’s forefather, but a descendant of David, Mary’s forefather, so that He could qualify to inherit the throne of David.

Living Stream Ministry (2012-09-18). Holy Bible Recovery Version (contains footnotes) (Kindle Locations 139343-139357). Living Stream Ministry. Kindle Edition.

Luke:
Lk 3: 382 son This does not mean that Adam was born of God and possessed the life of God, just as son of Joseph does not mean that Jesus was born of Joseph; rather, He was thought to be the son of Joseph (v. 23). Adam was created by God (Gen. 5: 1-2), and God was his origin. Based on this he was considered the son of God, even as the heathen poets considered all mankind to be the offspring of God (Acts 17: 28). Mankind was only created by God, not regenerated of Him. This is absolutely and intrinsically different from the believers in Christ being the sons of God. They have been born, regenerated, of God and possess God’s life and nature (John 1: 12-13; 3: 16; 2 Pet. 1: 4).

Living Stream Ministry (2012-09-18). Holy Bible Recovery Version (contains footnotes) (Kindle Locations 148807-148813). Living Stream Ministry. Kindle Edition.

Bro Ohio you must have a much better brain than I. I still don't get it, even after reading Lee. In fact after reading Lee on the genealogy I'm inclined to refer to the Passing Gas thread. Maybe it's not your brain, maybe the Holy Spirit is speaking to you thru Lee ... but no Spirit is speaking to me ... it must be that I'm a heathen.

You'll have to explain it to me. Maybe that will help.

Until then some thoughts for you to ponder:

In the Matthew section Lee starts out with:

Originally Posted by Lee

At this point the record of this genealogy does not say, “Joseph begot Jesus,” which is similar to what is said of all the foregoing persons; it says, “Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus.” Jesus was born of Mary, and not of Joseph, since it was prophesied that Christ would be the seed of the woman and would be born of a virgin (Gen. 3: 15; Isa. 7: 14).

Here's some problems: “Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus.” is not the same in all the mss. The Sinaitic Syriac ms says: “Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, fathered Jesus who is called the Christ.” Your favorite Bible scholar, Dr. Bart Ehrman, explains this in more detail in his Book "Orthodox Corruption of Scripture." The church you grew up in modified the NT. And now even Protestants, believe it, and Lee believed it.

If Joseph makes no genetic contribution to Jesus then why this genealogy? It doesn't prove a virgin birth, quite the opposite. I get the feeling that the author is reaching out to an audience that considers the expected messiah would come down from king David. Being occupied they sure had to be longing for a king David type savior/leader/messiah to reappear ... to save the day. By the time Matthew was written this didn't happen. So Matthew was really selling it hard, to his targeted audience.

Back to Lee. He strays from scripture here (quoted) all over the place, and embellishes it beyond the clear word, adding opinions willy-nilly (that only those looked up to as the MOTA could pull off -- let's call that the MOTA sleight of hand - or mind - trick). He doesn't address the different grandfathers of Jesus ; in Luke, "[Jesus] being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, in Matthew, "Jacob the father of Joseph

In the end Lee adds nothing to the problems of the two genealogies. I know no more after reading it, than I did before.

But maybe I'm not dealing with the footnotes of Lee that you were thinking of.

The ball is in your court.

Originally Posted by bro Ohio

During the gospels, Mary was the only person on earth that knew of the virgin birth, and she kept it secret for obvious reasons.

What reasons were those? And Joseph didn't know? Maybe he wasn't alive when the gospels were written but wouldn't he have been part of the oral tradition? Did he and Mary conspire to keep the virgin birth secret, as well as the birth date of Jesus too?

Originally Posted by bro Ohio

The Lord in His ministry, especially in the book of John, made it very clear who His Father was, yet did so without drawing attention to Mary. It was not until much later in life that she divulged this matter to Luke and Matthew, and the rest of civilization, for that matter.

Why tell Matthew and Luke, but not Mark, John, and even Paul? Why wouldn't something as phenomenal as the virgin birth (and the birthday) be told to everyone closely involved?