The Birth and Nature of Christ

Reading original sin which is passed down genetically into the Bible is simply bad exegesis...in fact its not exegesis. Exegesis means getting meaning "out of" the text, while eisegesis means putting meaning "onto" the text. When reading the Bible we have to put our theological wishes aside and actually see what it says on its own without reading Augustine, Calvin, Luther, or anyone else's theology on top of it.

Regarding the reference to "Heli" in the Jerusalem Talmud, Chagigah (or Hagigah): There are not 77 chapters or folios in J-Talmud Hagigah nor in the Babylonian Talmud Hagigah. There are some references to Jesus in the Talmud, but they are clearly trying to discredit Jesus as the Messiah.

 

You are right, it's part of the Bible...but your interpretation does not mesh with the passage well. The rest of Hebrews 10:5-6 is clearly about the sacrifice that Jesus made, thus the implication of "a body hast thou prepared for me" is that God prepared Jesus' body for sacrifice, as one would a lamb, goat, bull, dove, etc at the Temple.

 

donnA: From an Orthodox perspective, we understand sin a little differently from the “Western” (Roman Catholic and Protestant) view of sin. As Bishop Kallistos Ware states…the Orthodox Church doesn’t view sin quasi-biologically, like some genetic mutation that stained the original human couple and is being transmitted in generations, staining us all.

Rather, the Orthodox view sin as a disease to which we all are susceptible (because we have free will and haven't quite learnt how to use it properly), and to which we are increasingly susceptible because we are being born to the society where to be ill with this disease and to show its symptoms is considered normal (think of the common notions like to err is human, why should I be holier than thou, etc.). So, the great spiritual truth of the Bible is that everyone sins and nobody sins alone (that is, it is sufficient for one man to begin sinning, and the whole humankind will sooner or later be affected).

Jesus being fully human and fully divine, His humanity submitted to His divinity.

I’m guilty of my own sin, not Adam’s; I only inherited the consequences of Adam’s sin.

INXC

 

Here's what I've come up with....

According to Julius Africanus (c160-c240 AD) (I believe also referenced in Eusebius) in his Letter to Aristides:

"And for this reason the one traced the pedigree of Jacob the father of Joseph from David through Solomon; the other traced that of Heli also, though in a different way, the father of Joseph, from Nathan the son of David. And they ought not indeed to have been ignorant that both orders of the ancestors enumerated are the generation of David, the royal tribe of Juda."

He continuing in Chapter II:
"For indeed, by the succession of legitimate offspring, and according to law whenever another raised up children to the name of a brother dying childless; for because no clear hope of resurrection was yet given them, they had a representation of the future promise in a kind of mortal resurrection, with the view of perpetuating the name of one deceased;—whereas, then, of those entered in this genealogy, some succeeded by legitimate descent as son to father, while others begotten in one family were introduced to another in name, mention is therefore made of both—of those who were progenitors in fact, and of those who were so only in name. Thus neither of the evangelists is in error, as the one reckons by nature and the other by law. For the several generations, viz., those descending from Solomon and those from Nathan, were so intermingled by the raising up of children to the childless, and by second marriages, and the raising up of seed, that the same persons are quite justly reckoned to belong at one time to the one, and at another to the other, i.e., to their reputed or to their actual fathers. And hence it is that both these accounts are true, and come down to Joseph, with considerable intricacy indeed, but yet quite accurately."

In Chapter III...

"But in order that what I have said may be made evident, I shall explain the interchange of the generations. If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon, Matthan is found to be the third from the end, who begat Jacob the father of Joseph. But if, with Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third from the end is Melchi, whose son was Heli the father of Joseph. For Joseph was the son of Heli, the son of Melchi*. [*Note: But in our text in Luke iii. 23, 24, and so, too, in the Vulgate, Matthat and Levi are inserted between Heli and Melchi. It may be that these two names were not found in the copy used by Africanus.] As Joseph, therefore, is the object proposed to us, we have to show how it is that each is represented as his father, both Jacob as descending from Solomon, and Heli as descending from Nathan: first, how these two, Jacob and Heli, were brothers; and then also how the fathers of these, Matthan and Melchi* (Matthat), being of different families, are shown to be the grandfathers of Joseph. Well, then, Matthan and Melchi*(Matthat), having taken the same woman to wife in succession, begat children who were uterine brothers, as the law did not prevent a widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of her husband, from marrying another. By Estha, then—for such is her name according to tradition—Matthan first, the descendant of Solomon, begets Jacob; and on Matthan’s death, Melchi*(Matthat), who traces his descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another family, having married her, as has been already said, had a son Heli. Thus, then, we shall find Jacob and Heli uterine brothers, though of different families. And of these, the one Jacob having taken the wife of his brother Heli, who died childless, begat by her the third, Joseph—his son by nature and by account. Whence also it is written, “And Jacob begat Joseph.” But according to law he was the son of Heli, for Jacob his brother raised up seed to him. Wherefore also the genealogy deduced through him will not be made void, which the Evangelist Matthew in his enumeration gives thus: “And Jacob begat Joseph.” But Luke, on the other hand, says, “Who was the son, as was supposed (for this, too, he adds), of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Melchi*(Matthat--see note above).” For it was not possible more distinctly to state the generation according to law; and thus in this mode of generation he has entirely omitted the word “begat” to the very end, carrying back the genealogy by way of conclusion to Adam and to God."

Comment--So here's early testimony that the geneologies in Matthew and Luke are both of Joseph, with Joseph being descendent of David through Solomon through his biological father, Jacob, and also of David through Nathan through his legal father, Heli. (Jacob and Heli being half-brothers with the same mother--Estha)


Then a few centuries later, according to John of Damascus, in his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith:

"But that Joseph is descended from the tribe of David is expressly demonstrated by Matthew and Luke, the most holy evangelists. But Matthew derives Joseph from David through Solomon, while Luke does so through Nathan; while over the holy Virgin’s origin both pass in silence.
One ought to remember that it was not the custom of the Hebrews nor of the divine Scripture to give genealogies of women; and the law was to prevent one tribe seeking wives from another[Numbers 36:6-12]. . And so since Joseph was descended from the tribe of David and was a just man (for this the divine Gospel testifies), he would not have espoused the holy Virgin contrary to the law; he would not have taken her unless she had been of the same tribe. It was sufficient, therefore, to demonstrate the descent of Joseph.
One ought also to observe this, that the law was that when a man died without seed, this man’s brother should take to wife the wife of the dead man and raise up seed to his brother. The offspring, therefore, belonged by nature to the second, that is, to him that begat it, but by law to the dead.
Born then of the line of Nathan, the son of David, Levi begat Melchi* [*"Matthat", see NOTE above in citation of Julius Africanus] and Panther: Panther begat Barpanther, so called. This Barpanther begat Joachim: Joachim begat the holy Mother of God. And of the line of Solomon, the son of David, Mathan had a wife of whom he begat Jacob. Now on the death of Mathan, Melchi* (Matthat), of the tribe of Nathan, the son of Levi and brother of Panther, married the wife of Mathan, Jacob’s mother, of whom he begat Heli. Therefore Jacob and Heli became brothers on the mother’s side, Jacob being of the tribe of Solomon and Heli of the tribe of Nathan. Then Heli of the tribe of Nathan died childless, and Jacob his brother, of the tribe of Solomon, took his wife and raised up seed to his brother and begat Joseph. Joseph, therefore, is by nature the son of Jacob, of the line of Solomon, but by law he is the son of Heli of the line of Nathan. " (De Fide Ortho IV, 14)

Comments:
--So John basically repeats what Julius states regarding the geneologies of Joseph while adding the detail of Mary's great-grandfather and Joseph's (legal) grandfather being brothers--both sons of Levi--making them legally second cousins once removed.

--The names of Mary's parents, Joachim and Anna, go back very early, at least to the Protoevangelium of James (mid 2nd century AD) where they are described as David's descendents. (These names were consistent in Christian tradition)

--Both Ignatius (Ephesians 18) and Justin Martyr (Adv Trypho 100) also testify to the fact that Mary is of the seed of David.

--So Joseph is biologically and legally the descendent of David, and Mary is the descendent of David as well. If this assessment is correct then God seems to have had "all his bases covered". :thumbs:



As for the Talmud reference...
‘...that saw “Mary the daughter of Eli” in the shades, hanging by the fibres of her breasts; and there are that say, the gate, or, as elsewhere (Chagiga, fol. 77. 4.), the bar of the gate of hell is fixed to her ear’

(I got this from a website which advocates the idea that Luke's geneology was that of Mary). If this is indeed a reference to Christ's mother Mary, then it's maliciousness may give one pause before ascribing too much crediblity to it regarding the exact connection between Mary and Heli (although the two are cousins, based on John's (of Damascus) account). At any rate, from what I've read, in Christian circles the idea that Luke's geneology was that of Mary, rather that of Joseph, came very late in history.

 

DT, I went to the library at Fuller Seminary and looked at the Chagigah with my own eyes and was unable to find this reference in either the Babylonian or Jerusalem Talmud. I'm not saying that I doubt its veracity, but isn't it odd that there are actually only 3 or 4 folios of the Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah and 20-something in the Babylonians?

 

Great post, thanks! I was on the verge of pulling out some of my Orthodox sources. But now I don't have to, even though I may still do so!

 

Rom 3:23 "ALL HAVE sinned" makes your point about all choosing to sin.

But prior to that Romans 3 addresses the sin "nature" which speaks to the motives and intents of the heart BEFORE a decision is made "there is no one that SEEKS after God... no not one".

in Romans 7 we see the same thing "SIN IN me waging war against the law of my mind".

Christ did not have that "sin nature" but he had a physically "fallen nature" weakened physically - not spiritually deformed.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Good research DT, much appreciated!

ICXC NIKA
-

 

Thanks for the heads up. Unlike the references of Julius Africanus and John of Damascus (and Ignatius and Justin for that matter) which can easily be accessed and verified on the web, I only saw that Talmudic reference as cited on another website (hence my caveat given).

Again, thanks for taking the time to actually look it up. :thumbs:

 

You're welcome.

(It's been a SLOW day at work)

 

cowboymatt; thanks and if you are back at the library look under Oral Torah for the 77:4

BBob,

I have no idea how valid this reference is, maybe you know something about them.

http://www.jewfaq.org/moshe.htm

Oral Torah: The Talmud

In addition to the written scriptures we have an "Oral Torah," a tradition explaining what the above scriptures mean and how to interpret them and apply the Laws. Orthodox Jews believe G-d taught the Oral Torah to Moses, and he taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was maintained only in oral form until about the 2d century C.E., when the oral law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah.

 

So is this a true statement in your opinion is what I'd like to know

Quote:
donnA: Let me get this straight, God fertilized Mary's egg, and created a body for Jesus, and then Jesus indwelt the prepared body?
1. God made the body, inside Mary
2. Then Jesus indwelt it

 

Then what your saying it's possible for people not to sin.

 

Gathered from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

 

This information comes from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. It states the historic position on the Virgin Birth. It also states the position of Eusebius as heretical--the Ebionite view, a view that has been commonly expressed here.

 

I hope the motrin helps, I know I have to take mega doeses when I get migraines also. But when mine come they stay for days. Take your time about getting back to us.

What I just described (in my previous question) is a human being who became God, not God who became a human being.

 

Can I get any odds on how long this one will take to reach 30 pages??

Ed

 

Still no Scriptural proof that Mary contributed an egg, I see.

 

2 to 1 less than 4 days.