FW: Re: Jesus, his brother and his nephew

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Parsons

FW: Re: Jesus, his brother and his nephew

Legg inn av John Parsons » 19 nov 2004 16:21:01

The debate over the propriety of using the word "carpenter" has been
sharpened by the discovery and excavation of what was clearly a thriving and
cosmopolitan Roman city very near Nazareth. If Joseph was in any way
involved in the building trade he most likely would have had a good deal of
work in that city, where Jesus would have been exposed to a much more
sophisticated level of life (and thought) than the Gospels suggest.

I agree entirely that the authors of the Gospels would have had reason to
emphasize a humbler side of Jesus' life--that's exactly what is implied in
my earlier statement that they would have been more interested in a kingdom
that was "not of this earth" than in trumpeting any claim he might have had
to kinship w/a profoundly unpopular dynasty that ruled on this earth.

Regards

John P.


From: mkkirk@rcn.com (marshall kirk)
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Jesus, his brother and his nephew
Date: 19 Nov 2004 06:50:51 -0800

I won't address the question of the historicity of the accounts of
Jesus' background, and don't pretend, either, to the linguistic
expertise necessary to evaluate the usual translation of the word as
"carpenter"; but FWIW, I've read more than once that the proper
meaning of the word is something closer to 'contractor' or 'builder,'
which doesn't sound quite so low-rent. Also, some snippets of the
Gospels seem to imply that Jesus moved in fairly comfortable circles
in his earlier years. Altho' I express no opinion on whether or not
he was a descendant of David (or for that matter, of God Almighty), I
will say that it seems to me that the earliest Church fathers,
including the authors of the Gospels, would have had a strong
theological motivation to emphasize his humble position in this world.


Jwc1870@aol.com wrote in message news:<79.38da3007.2ecea716@aol.com>...
Dear Matthew,
Why would You doubt that the Head of the house of
David
could have been a carpenter in that era ? The Romans were the ones who
chose
who was going to be accepted as the Ruler of Judea / Israel and They
picked a
pliable Jew (?) named Herod. They wouldn`t of cared if the nominal head
of the
former royal house made his living cleaning out latrines nor as long as
no
fuss was caused by him if He did play some sort of role in the religion
of
Yahweh. I`m not sure that the Herods bothered themselves a great deal
about it
either, as long as They weren`t disturbed.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: FW: Re: Jesus, his brother and his nephew

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 nov 2004 17:41:01

In a message dated 11/19/2004 7:11:43 AM Pacific Standard Time,
carmi47@msn.com writes:

The debate over the propriety of using the word "carpenter" has been
sharpened by the discovery and excavation of what was clearly a thriving and

cosmopolitan Roman city very near Nazareth. If Joseph was in any way
involved in the building trade he most likely would have had a good deal of
work in that city,

Built long after Jesus' birth. You left out that part.
Will

Gjest

Re: FW: Re: Jesus, his brother and his nephew

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 nov 2004 18:31:01

In a message dated 11/19/2004 9:12:25 AM Pacific Standard Time,
carmi47@msn.com writes:

"... shepherds in the fields watching over their flocks by night."
Shepherds only do that at one time in the year--when the ewes are lambing in

the spring.

Sorry that's wrong.
Will

Gjest

Re: FW: Re: Jesus, his brother and his nephew

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 nov 2004 18:31:02

In a message dated 11/19/2004 9:20:44 AM Pacific Standard Time,
carmi47@msn.com writes:

Precisely. Both Gospel genealogies for Joseph are (like all Biblical
genealogies, OT and NT) only through the male line. It's impossible for
Joseph to have had TWO different male-line descents from David--so one of
the two must be in some way false, whether by fabrication or by error.

Or because you don't understand what they are trying to say ?

Gjest

Re: FW: Re: Jesus, his brother and his nephew

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 nov 2004 20:31:01

"Roman Catholic theologians have insisted that these references are really to "cousins." Most Protestant theologians accept them at face value, since as far as the Incarnation is concerned it is important only that Mary was a virgin at Jesus' conception & birth; thereafter she could
have had other children by Joseph--who could have had children by an earlier wife. (The Catholic Church continues to represent Joseph as a lifelong celibate & Mary, of course, as perpetually virgin.)"

Sorry, the Catholic church believe that Joseph had children from an earlier marriage and he remained a celibate from the time of Jesus forward, not backward.
I believe it's the Infancy Gospel of James or the one of Mary that explains this.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»