Universalism VS. Scripture

[Scholar in training]

This is more for future reference, but I wanted to ask you a question regarding your statement above: Where do you get the substantiation that anything, in Judaism, is traced through the line of the women; let alone Mary. It's a fanciful thing to mention, but there's not substance to it. I'm sincerely asking, because I presume that you have something sound to bring forth on it.

I believe Glenn Miller covers this well. He says that Levirate marriage allowed David to legally become the son Mary's father (Heli?):

The Jewish folk had numerous provisions for cases of inheritance-transfer in extreme cases. One of the more frequent situations that had to be covered (in a land-based, clan-ownership system) was that of childless marriages, or in some cases, of son-less marriages.
One of the more concise statements of how this would apply here, is by J. Stafford Wright in Dict. of New Test. Theol., III. 662:

"Mary's father (Heli?) had two daughters, May and the unnamed wife of Zebedee (John 19:25; Matt 27:56). If there were no sons, Joseph would become son of Heli on his marriage, to preserve the family name and inheritance (cf. Num 27:1-11; 36:1-12, esp. v. 8, which accounts for Mary marrying a man of the family of David.)"​

[The main passages in the OT that refer to these various laws are Num 7:1-11; Num 36:1-12; Lev 25:25; Dt 25:5-10. These practices were widespread in the Ancient Near East, and a good discussion of the details in Israel and differences from the ANE can be found in Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Vol 1--Social Institutions. Two famous cases, for good or ill, of these practices are in the story of Ruth (Book of Ruth) and in the story of Tamar (Gen 38:6ff).]
What this 'nets out to' is that Joseph 'married into' Mary's gene-pool...and hence, the virgin birth doesn't stop the lineage "transfer".

In other words, the the physical-gene did NOT come FROM JOSEPH was IRRELEVANT in this case. Legal standing was related to EITHER 'genes' OR to 'marriage'. (Although it should be pointed out that levirate arrangements like this required close kinship already, and hence, quite a number of overlapping genes.).

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that the "orange text" was a link in the previous post.

I should preface future discussions on this topic with you by asking: do you believe that your testament is inerrant?

Define "inerrant". It is impossible to avoid things like scribal errors and translation blurbs (including in the Old Testament), but of course those things don't affect important info. in the text.

 

[chokmah]

I believe Glenn Miller covers this well. He says that Levirate marriage allowed David to legally become the son Mary's father (Heli?):

The Jewish folk had numerous provisions for cases of inheritance-transfer in extreme cases. One of the more frequent situations that had to be covered (in a land-based, clan-ownership system) was that of childless marriages, or in some cases, of son-less marriages.
One of the more concise statements of how this would apply here, is by J. Stafford Wright in Dict. of New Test. Theol., III. 662:

"Mary's father (Heli?) had two daughters, May and the unnamed wife of Zebedee (John 19:25; Matt 27:56). If there were no sons, Joseph would become son of Heli on his marriage, to preserve the family name and inheritance (cf. Num 27:1-11; 36:1-12, esp. v. 8, which accounts for Mary marrying a man of the family of David.)"​

[The main passages in the OT that refer to these various laws are Num 7:1-11; Num 36:1-12; Lev 25:25; Dt 25:5-10. These practices were widespread in the Ancient Near East, and a good discussion of the details in Israel and differences from the ANE can be found in Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Vol 1--Social Institutions. Two famous cases, for good or ill, of these practices are in the story of Ruth (Book of Ruth) and in the story of Tamar (Gen 38:6ff).]

What this 'nets out to' is that Joseph 'married into' Mary's gene-pool...and hence, the virgin birth doesn't stop the lineage "transfer".

In other words, the the physical-gene did NOT come FROM JOSEPH was IRRELEVANT in this case. Legal standing was related to EITHER 'genes' OR to 'marriage'. (Although it should be pointed out that levirate arrangements like this required close kinship already, and hence, quite a number of overlapping genes.).

The "Heli" that you question above comes from the Talmud, and has nothing to do with Jesus. Therefore, I would have to say that this assertion is a dead-end since there is no documentation of Mary's family anywhere.

The Levirate marriage consideration is something that I know some of my Jewish compatriots are knowledgeable in. My knowledge is lacking in Jewish law in this situation. Just to ask: does Glenn Miller have any background in Jewish law that you know of?

Define "inerrant". It is impossible to avoid things like scribal errors and translation blurbs (including in the Old Testament), but of course those things don't affect important info. in the text.

Well, in this case, both geneologies speak of Jesus' lineage through Joseph. Was this a scribal error, translation blurb, or something else?

 

[Scholar in training]

The "Heli" that you question above comes from the Talmud, and has nothing to do with Jesus.

I am unsure as to where Miller's source gets the information about Heli.

Therefore, I would have to say that this assertion is a dead-end since there is no documentation of Mary's family anywhere.

Please, don't pull an argument of silence with me. The documentation is in Luke, much like the documentation of Moses' existence is found in Exodus, and nowhere else. If you doubt the record of Mary's lineage, you will have to explain why on other grounds.

The Levirate marriage consideration is something that I know some of my Jewish compatriots are knowledgeable in. My knowledge is lacking in Jewish law in this situation. Just to ask: does Glenn Miller have any background in Jewish law that you know of?

His personal bio has a little on that:

Past Memberships: Philosophy of Science Association, Society of Biblical Literature, Evangelical Philosophical Society, ISPE. . Always learning, growing, challenging my assumptions. I keep current memberships in EPS, ETS, and the Society of Christian Philosophers.

Main Research interests: Biblical intertextuality, Pseudepigrapha, theological method, the suffering of God, writing/literature in the ANE.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/webbio.html#personalbio

His membership in the Society of Biblical Literature, and interests in biblical intertextuality and writing/lit in the Ancient Near East likely covers some experience in/knowledge of Jewish law.

Well, in this case, both geneologies speak of Jesus' lineage through Joseph.

Why? One may detail Joseph's lineage and the other Mary's. It doesn't really matter since Joseph was already legally (and maybe genetically) a part of Mary's family line.

Was this a scribal error, translation blurb, or something else?

Something else. I believe I already touched on some of the reasons why Matthew's list is different from Luke's when I said:

Telescoping geneaologies was not uncommon in either the biblical or pagan world, as their main purpose was to trace one's lineage to an important family group or ancestor, and they were condensed to be easily memorable (since Judea's culture was mainly oral).

 

[chokmah]

Please, don't pull an argument of silence with me. The documentation is in Luke, much like the documentation of Moses' existence is found in Exodus, and nowhere else. If you doubt the record of Mary's lineage, you will have to explain why on other grounds.

I wasn't being flippant; nor was I appealing to silence. I am simply saying that there is no record of Mary's lineage. You're more than welcome to present it if you want to. I am of the mind that it does not exist.

Why? One may detail Joseph's lineage and the other Mary's. It doesn't really matter since Joseph was already legally (and maybe genetically) a part of Mary's family line.

Here's the thing, SiT. You've got two lineages that have Joseph at the end. They divert at Nathan and Solomon, and have little to nothing in common with each other. Lineage is never determined through the mother in Jewish law. Therefore, these two lineages have to be through Joseph, if the authors are Jews. Now, Mary could very well be a part of Joseph's family line, but it would not be the other way around.

Something else. I believe I already touched on some of the reasons why Matthew's list is different from Luke's when I said:

Telescoping geneaologies was not uncommon in either the biblical or pagan world, as their main purpose was to trace one's lineage to an important family group or ancestor, and they were condensed to be easily memorable (since Judea's culture was mainly oral).

I understand "telescoping", but that is not the only difference between the two. If the names lined up; then that would definitely be a major consideration. However, they are drastically different in quantity and name.

 

[Scholar in training]

I wasn't being flippant; nor was I appealing to silence. I am simply saying that there is no record of Mary's lineage. You're more than welcome to present it if you want to. I am of the mind that it does not exist.

Let's turn this around: I wasn't being flippant; nor was I appealing to silence. I am simply saying that there is no record of Moses' lineage. You're more than welcome to present it if you want to. I am of the mind that it does not exist, and perhaps that Moses did not exist.

Here's the thing, SiT. You've got two lineages that have Joseph at the end. They divert at Nathan and Solomon, and have little to nothing in common with each other.

The Solomon line was the royal line mentioned in Matthew, traced through Joseph, and the Nathan line was the non-royal line mentioned in Luke, traced through Mary.

Lineage is never determined through the mother in Jewish law. Therefore, these two lineages have to be through Joseph, if the authors are Jews.

As I have said, Mary came from David's line, and Joseph "stepped into" it. Joseph was, then, legally part of David's line. Jesus was Joseph's legal son, and by extension a descendant of King David. If you require a literal bloodline, then, as I have also said, since interfamilial relations were common in the ANE, it is possible that Joseph and Mary shared some genes.

I understand "telescoping", but that is not the only difference between the two. If the names lined up; then that would definitely be a major consideration. However, they are drastically different in quantity and name.

If you understood telescoping, then you would understand why some of the names are missing. I again refer you to Miller's article, which explains this. If you have any qualms on a specific issue in the article, then bring it up so we can debate. I believe I have provided a fair amount of information on the issue already.

 

[flautist]

Dan, I got the bible today that I was telling you about (the one translated directly from the greek to english). I'm working on going through the list now to see what this translation says.

 

[flautist]

seems pretty close but for a few differences. First of all, "hell" is not mentioned. The couple places where it says hell in your translations is "Gehenna" in this one.

The other thing I must mention is that nowhere in these verses does it say that the torment will be eternal. It says that the fire will never go out, but it does not say that one will be in the fire eternally. I personally believe that fire is that of the holy spirit. This comes from Matthew 3:11-12

For I, indeed, am baptizing you in water for repentance, yet He Who is coming after me is stronger than I, Whose sandals I am not competent to bear. He will be baptizing you in holy spirit and fire, Whose winnowing shovel is in His hand, and He will be scouring His threshing floor, and will be gathering his grain into His barn, yet the chaff will He be burning up with unextinguished fire.

His grain is people of the earth, ALL the people. the chaff is the sin of these people. To use a favorite phrase of people around here, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." That's what Christ expects us to do, because that's what he did and still does. He saves the people, and destroys their sin through baptism in fire.

 

[Mailman Dan]

Dan, I got the bible today that I was telling you about (the one translated directly from the greek to english). I'm working on going through the list now to see what this translation says.

Awsome!

I was wondering if you could post a few of the key verses up to compare the NIV and NKJ text...


Daniel 12:2

Mathew 25:46

Romans 2:8,9

Jude 7,13

And of course...

Revelation 14:10,11


I wanted to know how closely they translate over, or if there is a big difference.

Where can I get one of those BTW?


Dan~~~>usually just uses online sources

 

[chokmah]

Let's turn this around: I wasn't being flippant; nor was I appealing to silence. I am simply saying that there is no record of Moses' lineage. You're more than welcome to present it if you want to. I am of the mind that it does not exist, and perhaps that Moses did not exist.

The Solomon line was the royal line mentioned in Matthew, traced through Joseph, and the Nathan line was the non-royal line mentioned in Luke, traced through Mary.

So, you don't believe that in the prophesy regarding the Messiah coming through Solomon only then, correct?

As I have said, Mary came from David's line, and Joseph "stepped into" it. Joseph was, then, legally part of David's line. Jesus was Joseph's legal son, and by extension a descendant of King David. If you require a literal bloodline, then, as I have also said, since interfamilial relations were common in the ANE, it is possible that Joseph and Mary shared some genes.

Do you believe in the "virgin birth"?

If you understood telescoping, then you would understand why some of the names are missing. I again refer you to Miller's article, which explains this. If you have any qualms on a specific issue in the article, then bring it up so we can debate. I believe I have provided a fair amount of information on the issue already.

It appears to be rather pointless.

 

[Scholar in training]

So, you don't believe that in the prophesy regarding the Messiah coming through Solomon only then, correct?

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Would you expand?

Do you believe in the "virgin birth"?

Yes.

 

[Charlie V]

Dan, I got the bible today that I was telling you about (the one translated directly from the greek to english). I'm working on going through the list now to see what this translation says.

Robert Young's Literal translation, available for viewing at www.blueletterbible.com also was translated directly from Greek to English.

Gehenna is correctly rendered "Gehenna" in his version, and Aionios (often mistranslated "eternal") is correctly translated as "Age-during."

Charlie

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Agreed. Blue Letter is very, very helpful. We know more than our pastors!

 

[Mailman Dan]

Rev 14:11And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.


It's a better translation that you trust?


Dan~~~>will post scripture from this version if you believe it better

 

[flautist]

I don't know what translation that is, but it's not Young's Literal. I have that one right here in front of me:

Rev. 14:11 and the smoke of their torment doth go up to ages of ages: and they have no rest day and night, who are bowing before the beast and his image, also if any doth recieve the mark of his name.

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

And who is "they"? verse 4 is pretty clear, any man that worship the beast... but the word MAN here is interesting, look it up on yer blue letter search... in 4 out of 7 cases this word is translated as a non-person, ie. a thing or other.

 

[ballfan]

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

How does the universalist view the above verses? Not everyone does the above.

 

[chokmah]

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

How does the universalist view the above verses? Not everyone does the above.

It's pretty easy to answer from a Judaic point of view; so I'm sure universalists don't have much trouble either.

 

[Charlie V]

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

How does the universalist view the above verses? Not everyone does the above.

Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus is Lord.

I already know what you'll say next, "Even the demons confess Jesus is Lord, and tremble."

The anti-universalists argue in circles and defeat their own arguments. They'll argue confession brings salvation -- if it suits them. They'll argue confession doesn't bring salvation -- if it suits them.

You say "Not everyone does the above." The Bible says differently -- in several places.

Next will be the argument, "Doing the above doesn't matter." The Bible says different -- right in the verses you posted here.

Of course, it's not the confession that every tongue will make that brings salvation. Salvation comes to all mankind through grace, lest we boast.

Charlie

 

[Im_A]

Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus is Lord.

I already know what you'll say next, "Even the demons confess Jesus is Lord, and tremble."

The anti-universalists argue in circles and defeat their own arguments. They'll argue confession brings salvation -- if it suits them. They'll argue confession doesn't bring salvation -- if it suits them.

You say "Not everyone does the above." The Bible says differently -- in several places.

Next will be the argument, "Doing the above doesn't matter." The Bible says different -- right in the verses you posted here.

Of course, it's not the confession that every tongue will make that brings salvation. Salvation comes to all mankind through grace, lest we boast.

Charlie

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

How does the universalist view the above verses? Not everyone does the above.

Also... if you're going to proof text then don't add to what is there. "If" is not exculsive, it is a possibility. You have to assume an "If not..." is implied in the above out of context scriptures that aren't stated.

For example, if you launch Internet Explorer and type in a url in the browser, and then click the enter key you'll arrive at the desired website.Right? Now, is that the ONLY way to get to where you want to go on the net???
No other way is mentioned in the directions given so do we correctly assume no other way exists? You can't do so from only what is provided.
Now this doesn't mean that you have been taught or believed something incorrectly, just incompletely. One or two scriptures can't cover any and all possiblities. For those that do A, they get B. That doesn't mean A is the only way to get to B.