Does Jesus' Family Tree Really Have to Be Invalidated Because of a Female Stand-in and Two Male Stand-ins?

• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Sep 17, 2016 6:00 PM GMT

  Dr. Ehrman: Even more problematic, neither genealogy is actually the genealogy of Jesus!
  
  Steefen, author of the Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy, First Edition
  
  ... He was known as the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat - Luke 3: 23-24
  Jesus (son of Joseph and Mary) where Mary had Heli as parental guardian, giving Heli the honorary position of son of the king, Antigonus II Mattathias.
  ~ ~ ~ An Explanation ~ ~ ~
  Heli need not be a biological son of King Antigonus II Mattathias. Besides, a biological son of Antigonus would have to have survived Herod the Great’s slaughter of the heirs of Antigonus. This did not happen; however, as we have seen, Josephus speaks of a female heir who did survive.
  
  The sole survivor, a daughter of (Antigonus II) Matthat is Heli.
  
  Alternative 2
  
  In the book Herodian Messiah by Joseph Raymond, Heli would not have been the father of Joseph, Jesus’ stepfather, Heli would have been the father figure or adoptive father for Antigonus’ surviving daughter--yes, another adoptive father, this time for Mary, the father figure to Mary when her marriage to Prince Antipater failed when King Herod condemned him to death and had him executed for plans of patricide.
  
  = = =
  Dr. Ehrman, why fault a genealogy when a female has to stand in for no male heirs and when stepfathers or father-figure guardians have to stand in for a father who has been assassinated (Antigonus Matthat was assassinated by Marc Antony)?

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Sep 19, 2016 8:08 AM GMT

  The geneology of Jesus is described in Matthew Chapter 1

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Sep 19, 2016 4:43 PM GMT

  Dynamo_spark
  And what is your actual question?
  
  stephenoabc
  
  Why fault a genealogy when a female has to stand in for no male heirs when continuing the family line?
  
  Why fault a genealogy when stepfathers or father-figure guardians have to stand in for a father who has been assassinated?
  
  Dynamo_spark
  You can get an answer on your knees in prayer.
  
  stephenoabc
  What? Are you capable of having a non-faith discussion?
  In a short while, I'm off to a library which has a genealogy room and see what they have to say about these two questions.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Sep 19, 2016 4:55 PM GMT

  In Egyptology, one has examples where biological parents are given but a god is assigned as a conception partner. So, we have DNA genealogy and mythological genealogy. I'm leaning to a third, a public, G-Rated or no-hurt feelings due to being put up for adoption, conception outside of marriage, incest, biological parent who did something criminal, danger of being killed (think Augustus Caesar killing the son of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra VII).
  
  Jesus
  Jesus is a composite character.
  
  For one person who is a component of Jesus, there is royal sibling incest.
  For one person who is a component of Jesus, there is the fear of Mary being killed by the Herodian Dynasty if she was the daughter of King Antigonus, king before Herod the Great.
  
  Finally, while we can have a mythological Virgin Birth with inception by a god, Jesus still needs a biological father.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• NativeWolfSon
  
  Posts: 15
  
  
  Sep 20, 2016 2:02 AM GMT

  I agree with you Dynamo_Spark, fall down to your knees and Pray. Sometime you might not get the answer you want but GOD will answer you in his way. I Pray & ask GOD all the time.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Sep 21, 2016 12:40 AM GMT

  Bart D. Ehrman
  
  I don't understand the question.
  
  Stephenoabc/Steefen
  
  You are saying neither genealogy is the genealogy of Jesus.
  Thinking about the genealogy in Luke, I see a way where the early reverse chronology is telling us something accurate and that part of the genealogy is the genealogy of Jesus.
  
  I thought you were saying that because you thought the Lukan genealogy does not get back to Mary after starting off with Joseph. I was presenting a way that it does.
  
  Second, I was asking you why do you fault the Lukan genealogy a) when a female is the link in the family chain rather than a male; b) when a respectable father figure is substituted for an embarrassing biological father?
  
  Three scenarios for the father of Jesus:
  
  Jesus' true father was Antipater who was condemned to death by his father Herod the Great because this Jesus' father plotted to kill his father, Herod, the Great.
  
  Jesus' true father was King Monobazus who gave birth to Jesus via royal sibling incest.
  
  Jesus' true father was Panthera, a Roman military man (not a husband of Mary), which would give Jesus some Roman rights during his trial.
  
  Neither of the above three scenarios put Jesus' biological father and Jesus himself in a good light.
  
  Today, I went to the Genealogy Center at a local library. 1) There is genealogy by public records, 2) there is genealogy by DNA, 3) there is genealogy [by the investigative historian], 4) there is genealogy by the victors who write History.
  
  Luke, in a sense, was a victor who got to publish Jesus' genealogy.
  
  Joseph > Heli > Matthat > Levi > Melchi > Jannai
  where Jannai is Levi and Melchi, priest and king
  OR
  where Matthat is Levi and Melchi, priest and King.
  
  Jannai is Alexander Jannai/Jannaeus/Yannai, Hasmonean king of Judaea 103-76 BCE who was High Priest and king. However, there is another candidate, who for a while was king and priest: Aristobulus II, king 66-63 BCE and High Priest 66 to 62 BCE. Eventually, we get to Antigonus II Mattathias, son of Aristobulus being made king and High Priest not by Rome but by Parthia (eventually, you get a "hence" three wise men from the East (Parthia) come to visit Jesus.
  
  With Antigonus II Mattathias' daughter surviving Herod the Great's slaughter, she gets pregnant by her husband Antipater, or by a Roman military man named Panthera/Pantera, we have the Parthia approved bloodline of Antigonus surviving in an embarrassing way for print but preserved for investigators of history.
  
  So, Dr. Ehrman do you fault genealogies of parents who only have daughters with a child and no sons with child? Second, do you fault ceremonial genealogies where criminal fathers are stricken from the record?

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Sep 21, 2016 12:44 AM GMT

  Dynamo_spark saidThe geneology of Jesus is described in Matthew Chapter 1

  
  
  What is your point?
  
  There is also a genealogy beginning with the 23rd verse of Luke, Chapter 3.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Sep 21, 2016 12:46 AM GMT

  Humma1Abukbo saidI agree with you Dynamo_Spark, fall down to your knees and Pray. Sometime you might not get the answer you want but GOD will answer you in his way. I Pray & ask GOD all the time.

  
  
  Glad to know all three of us are in agreement for in the writing of my first notes, then the first edition of my book, and now the second edition of my book, I have gotten on my knees and prayed to God. Now, with that out of the way, do you have anything else to contribute to the discussion?

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Sep 22, 2016 1:17 AM GMT

  Bart D. Ehrman
  
  I don't understand the question.
  
  Stephenoabc/Steefen
  
  You are saying neither genealogy is the genealogy of Jesus.
  Thinking about the genealogy in Luke, I see a way where the early reverse chronology is telling us something accurate and that part of the genealogy is the genealogy of Jesus.
  
  I thought you were saying that because you thought the Lukan genealogy does not get back to Mary after starting off with Joseph. I was presenting a way that it does.
  
  Second, I was asking you why do you fault the Lukan genealogy a) when a female is the link in the family chain rather than a male; b) when a respectable father figure is substituted for an embarrassing biological father?
  
  Three scenarios for the father of Jesus:
  
  Jesus' true father was Antipater who was condemned to death by his father Herod the Great because this Jesus' father plotted to kill his father, Herod, the Great.
  
  Jesus' true father was King Monobazus who gave birth to Jesus via royal sibling incest.
  
  Jesus' true father was Panthera, a Roman military man (not a husband of Mary), which would give Jesus some Roman rights during his trial.
  
  Neither of the above three scenarios put Jesus' biological father and Jesus himself in a good light.
  
  Today, I went to the Genealogy Center at a local library. 1) There is genealogy by public records, 2) there is genealogy by DNA, 3) there is genealogy [by the investigative historian], 4) there is genealogy by the victors who write History.
  
  Luke, in a sense, was a victor who got to publish Jesus' genealogy.
  
  Joseph > Heli > Matthat > Levi > Melchi > Jannai
  where Jannai is Levi and Melchi, priest and king
  OR
  where Matthat is Levi and Melchi, priest and King.
  
  Jannai is Alexander Jannai/Jannaeus/Yannai, Hasmonean king of Judaea 103-76 BCE who was High Priest and king. However, there is another candidate, who for a while was king and priest: Aristobulus II, king 66-63 BCE and High Priest 66 to 62 BCE. Eventually, we get to Antigonus II Mattathias, son of Aristobulus being made king and High Priest not by Rome but by Parthia (eventually, you get a "hence" three wise men from the East (Parthia) come to visit Jesus.
  
  With Antigonus II Mattathias' daughter surviving Herod the Great's slaughter, she gets pregnant by her husband Antipater, or by a Roman military man named Panthera/Pantera, we have the Parthia approved bloodline of Antigonus surviving in an embarrassing way for print but preserved for investigators of history.
  
  So, Dr. Ehrman do you fault genealogies of parents who only have daughters with a child and no sons with child? Second, do you fault ceremonial genealogies where criminal fathers are stricken from the record?
  
  = = =
  
  I tend not to fault people at all when it comes to genealogies.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM