What? No Josephology?!?!?

Uphill Battle · Jul 3, 2007

not often I'm on the other side of the table from you Rick, but the line of Jewish Kings ended. the Kingship of Jesus Christ does not come from the succession from David (although as a decendant of David, he fulfilled the Messianic prophecy of such) but from God and God alone.

Rick Otto · Jul 3, 2007

Kristos said:
So what's the tie breaker? How does one decide which assumption is correct? Do you listen to your peers? Do you listen to ancient writings? Do you listen modern writings? Isn't this really the crux?.... Where do you get your Tradition?

AH! Good question, thank you!
The written part of tradition will suffice in addition to The Holy Spirit. Get to know 'em both, and your priorities begin to fall in step with them. Accept truth from anyone, but verify like a Berean.
One thing you will notice is that the spiritual has a certain priority over the physical. Both are important, but the physical follows the lead of the spirit.
Jesus leads us away from placing too much importance on the physical, specificaly regarding His family, I'm sure you'll agree, thinking of the loud woman in Luke where she wants to render dulia worship to Mary, venerating her paps & womb and Jesus says rather, blessed is he who hears God & obeys.

Rick Otto · Jul 3, 2007

Uphill Battle said:
not often I'm on the other side of the table from you Rick, but the line of Jewish Kings ended. the Kingship of Jesus Christ does not come from the succession from David (although as a decendant of David, he fulfilled the Messianic prophecy of such) but from God and God alone.

And I agree the line of Kings ended, but not the line of heirs to that throne, otherwise it wouldn't've mattered to the prophecy that He was "King of The Jews" as was the indictment nailed to His cross, right?

Uphill Battle · Jul 3, 2007

Rick Otto said:
And I agree the line of Kings ended, but not the line of heirs to that throne, otherwise it wouldn't've mattered to the prophecy that He was "King of The Jews" as was the indictment nailed to His cross, right?

Ok. His heirship isn't being contested by either Prodromos or myself, in that he is a direct decendent of David.

What have taken issue with is the "secret king" assertion forwarded regarding Joseph. Seeing as the line of kings ended, he could not be some secret king, regardless of his lineage. Heir, perhaps. But he was no king. Jesus was King, because of what God did through his lineage, but not because Joseph was a king in absentia!

Rick Otto · Jul 3, 2007

I see. I missed the "secret king" allegation I guess.
The indictment was made based on what He said, & His claim was not based on geneology, the prophecy was, but legitimacy was confirmed, not established by prophecy.
You're right.

kepha31 · Jul 3, 2007

The first Christians followed their Master in reading the Bible this way. In the letter to the Hebrews, the Old Testament tabernacle and its rituals are described as "types and shadows of heavenly realities" (8:5), and the law as a "shadow of the good things to come" (10:1). Saint Peter, in turn, noted that Noah and his family "were saved through water," and that "this prefigured baptism, which saves you now" (1 Pt 3:20-21). Peter's word translated as "prefigured" is actually the Greek word for "typify," or "make a type." The apostle Paul, for his part, described Adam as a "type" of Jesus Christ (Rom 5:14).
So what is a type? A type is a real person, place, thing, or event in the Old Testament that foreshadows something greater in the New Testament. From "type" we get the word "typology," the study of Christ's foreshadowing in the Old Testament (see Catechism, 128-130).

Again, we must emphasize that types are not fictional symbols. They are literally true historical details. When Saint Paul interpreted the story of Abraham's sons as "an allegory" (Gal 4:24), for example, he was not suggesting that the story never really happened; he was affirming it as history, but as history with a place in God's plan, history whose meaning was clear only after its eventual fulfillment.

Typology unveils more than the person of Christ; it also tells us about heaven, the Church, the apostles, the Eucharist, the places of Jesus' birth and death, and the person of Jesus' mother. From the first Christians we learn that the Jerusalem temple foreshadowed the heavenly dwelling of the saints in glory (2 Cor 5:1—2; Rev / 21:9-22); that Israel prefigured the Church (Gal 6:16); that the twelve Old Testament patriarchs prefigured the , twelve New Testament apostles (Lk 22:30); and that the / ark of the covenant was a type of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Rev 11:19; 12:1-6,13-17).

In addition to Old Testament types explicitly discussed in the New Testament, there are many more that are implicit but obvious. For example,
Saint Joseph's role in the early life of Jesus clearly follows the patriarch Joseph's role in the early life of Israel.

The two men share the same name;
both are described as "righteous," or "just"; ,
both receive revelations in dreams;
both find themselves exiled to Egypt;
and both arrive on the scene in order to prepare the way for a greater event—in the patriarch Joseph's case, the exodus led by Moses, the Deliverer; in Saint Joseph's case, the redemption brought about by Jesus, the Redeemer.

Marian types abound in the Old Testament.

We find Mary prefigured in Eve, the mother of all the living;
in Sarah, the wife of Abraham, who conceived her child miraculously;
in the queen mother of Israel's monarchy, who interceded with the king on behalf of the people of the land;
and in many other places, in many other ways (for example, Hannah and Esther).

The type addressed most explicitly in the New Testament, the ark of the covenant, I will discuss in greater detail in its own chapter. Here I will merely point out that, as the ancient ark was made to bear the old covenant, so the Virgin Mary was created to bear the new covenant.

"Hail Holy Queen, the Mother of God in the Word of God" by Prof. Scott Hahn Doubleday, pages 23-25

Rick Otto · Jul 3, 2007

But too much of a good thing is not a good thing.
Too much is too much.

Uphill Battle · Jul 3, 2007

kepha31 said:
The first Christians followed their Master in reading the Bible this way. In the letter to the Hebrews, the Old Testament tabernacle and its rituals are described as "types and shadows of heavenly realities" (8:5), and the law as a "shadow of the good things to come" (10:1). Saint Peter, in turn, noted that Noah and his family "were saved through water," and that "this prefigured baptism, which saves you now" (1 Pt 3:20-21). Peter's word translated as "prefigured" is actually the Greek word for "typify," or "make a type." The apostle Paul, for his part, described Adam as a "type" of Jesus Christ (Rom 5:14).
So what is a type? A type is a real person, place, thing, or event in the Old Testament that foreshadows something greater in the New Testament. From "type" we get the word "typology," the study of Christ's foreshadowing in the Old Testament (see Catechism, 128-130).

Again, we must emphasize that types are not fictional symbols. They are literally true historical details. When Saint Paul interpreted the story of Abraham's sons as "an allegory" (Gal 4:24), for example, he was not suggesting that the story never really happened; he was affirming it as history, but as history with a place in God's plan, history whose meaning was clear only after its eventual fulfillment.

Typology unveils more than the person of Christ; it also tells us about heaven, the Church, the apostles, the Eucharist, the places of Jesus' birth and death, and the person of Jesus' mother. From the first Christians we learn that the Jerusalem temple foreshadowed the heavenly dwelling of the saints in glory (2 Cor 5:1—2; Rev / 21:9-22); that Israel prefigured the Church (Gal 6:16); that the twelve Old Testament patriarchs prefigured the , twelve New Testament apostles (Lk 22:30); and that the / ark of the covenant was a type of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Rev 11:19; 12:1-6,13-17).

In addition to Old Testament types explicitly discussed in the New Testament, there are many more that are implicit but obvious. For example,
Saint Joseph's role in the early life of Jesus clearly follows the patriarch Joseph's role in the early life of Israel.

The two men share the same name;

both are described as "righteous," or "just"; ,

both receive revelations in dreams;

both find themselves exiled to Egypt;

and both arrive on the scene in order to prepare the way for a greater event—in the patriarch Joseph's case, the exodus led by Moses, the Deliverer; in Saint Joseph's case, the redemption brought about by Jesus, the Redeemer.

Marian types abound in the Old Testament.

We find Mary prefigured in Eve, the mother of all the living;

in Sarah, the wife of Abraham, who conceived her child miraculously;

in the queen mother of Israel's monarchy, who interceded with the king on behalf of the people of the land;

and in many other places, in many other ways (for example, Hannah and Esther).

The type addressed most explicitly in the New Testament, the ark of the covenant, I will discuss in greater detail in its own chapter. Here I will merely point out that, as the ancient ark was made to bear the old covenant, so the Virgin Mary was created to bear the new covenant.

"Hail Holy Queen, the Mother of God in the Word of God" by Prof. Scott Hahn Doubleday, pages 23-25

Debate tactic 142.

Copy, Paste. Repeat.

prodromos · Jul 3, 2007

LivingWordUnity said:
Here is my proof. It's directly from the Bible. This is a list of Kings from King David to Joseph to Jesus.

Matthew Chapter 1
1: The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
2: Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3: and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram,
4: and Ram the father of Ammin'adab, and Ammin'adab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5: and Salmon the father of Bo'az by Rahab, and Bo'az the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse,
6: and Jesse the father of David the king. And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uri'ah,
7: and Solomon the father of Rehobo'am, and Rehobo'am the father of Abi'jah, and Abi'jah the father of Asa,
8: and Asa the father of Jehosh'aphat, and Jehosh'aphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzzi'ah,
9: and Uzzi'ah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezeki'ah,
10: and Hezeki'ah the father of Manas'seh, and Manas'seh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josi'ah,
11: and Josi'ah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
12: And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoni'ah was the father of She-al'ti-el, and She-al'ti-el the father of Zerub'babel,
13: and Zerub'babel the father of Abi'ud, and Abi'ud the father of Eli'akim, and Eli'akim the father of Azor,
14: and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eli'ud,
15: and Eli'ud the father of Elea'zar, and Elea'zar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob,
16: and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

If someone other than Joseph would have been the rightful King of Judah, how would Jesus have been in line for inheriting it?

[bible]1 Chronicles 3:10-16[/bible]
[bible]Jeremiah 27:20[/bible]
[bible]Jeremiah 36:30[/bible]
Jeremiah 36:30 proves that Matthew cannot be showing Joseph to be the rightful heir to the throne since no one from Jechoniah onwards would sit upon the throne.

Rick Otto · Jul 3, 2007

to seperate the person from their office.
The persons vacated, but the office remained even if not claimed.

prodromos · Jul 3, 2007

Rick Otto said:
The persons vacated, but the office remained even if not claimed.

I have not suggested otherwise. I don't quite understand what point you are making.

Uphill Battle · Jul 3, 2007

prodromos said:
[bible]1 Chronicles 3:10-16[/bible]
[bible]Jeremiah 27:20[/bible]
[bible]Jeremiah 36:30[/bible]
Jeremiah 36:30 proves that Matthew cannot be showing Joseph to be the rightful heir to the throne since no one from Jechoniah onwards would sit upon the throne.

Booyah.

LivingWordUnity · Jul 3, 2007

Uphill Battle said:
Ok. His heirship isn't being contested by either Prodromos or myself, in that he is a direct decendent of David.

Uphill Battle said:
What have taken issue with is the "secret king" assertion forwarded regarding Joseph. Seeing as the line of kings ended, he could not be some secret king, regardless of his lineage. Heir, perhaps. But he was no king. Jesus was King, because of what God did through his lineage, but not because Joseph was a king in absentia!

Jesus was secretly the King of the Jews as well. I think that's one detail that you may have over looked. So if Jesus was secretly the King of Judah, why wouldn't he have inherited that secret kingship from his father Joseph?

Uphill Battle · Jul 3, 2007

LivingWordUnity said:
Jesus was secretly the King of the Jews as well. I think that's one detail that you may have over looked. So if Jesus was secretly the King of Judah, why wouldn't he have inherited that secret kingship from his father Joseph?

Dude, your point has been defeated. Check out what Prodromos posted.

prodromos · Jul 3, 2007

LivingWordUnity said:
Jesus was secretly the King of the Jews as well. I think that's one detail that you may have over looked. So if Jesus was secretly the King of Judah, why wouldn't he have inherited that secret kingship from his father Joseph?

You hadn't read all of the subsequent posts when you posted this had you?

It is beside the point though since Jesus has always been King of Kings and Lord of Lords since before all time.

LivingWordUnity · Jul 3, 2007

Uphill Battle said:
Dude, your point has been defeated. Check out what Prodromos posted.

Why do you deny that Jesus was/is the king of Judah? What do you think that point of the genealogy in the beginning of Matthew was for?

Uphill Battle · Jul 3, 2007

John 1833Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"

34"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?"
35"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"
36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." 37"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.

Jesus is quite explicit that his kingship is not of this world. the line of Jewish kings had ended.

Uphill Battle · Jul 3, 2007

LWU said:
Why do you deny that Jesus was the king of Judah? What do you think that point of the genealogy in the beginning of Matthew was for?

to show prophecy fulfilled.

LivingWordUnity · Jul 3, 2007

Uphill Battle said:
John 1833Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"

Uphill Battle said:
34"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?"
35"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"
36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." 37"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.

Jesus is quite explicit that his kingship is not of this world. the line of Jewish kings had ended.

Jesus is 100% true man as well as being 100% true God.

This is the mystery of the incarnation. God became as one of us in all things except for sin.

So his kingship has both earthly and Heavenly origins. Jesus' kingship was started by God making David the King of Judah, and at the same time the eternal Heavenly Kingship.

It doesn't have to be "either or". It can be "both and".

I noticed that Protestants have a tendency to try to over simplify and see everything as either or. But Catholics more often see that more than one thing can be true at the same time without being a contradiction.

prodromos · Jul 3, 2007

LWU, I ask this sincerely.

Did you come up with this idea on your own, did you learn of it from the EWTN article, or was it something you were taught?

What? No Josephology?!?!?

Well-Known Member

The Dude Abides

The Dude Abides

Well-Known Member

The Dude Abides

Regular Member

The Dude Abides

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

The Dude Abides

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency