Sacred Marriage of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene
http://mysticsaint.blogspot.com/2008/08/sacred-marriage-of-jesus-christ-and.html

I’ve also heard it mentioned that a “son” in the bible can also be refering to a grandson. So maybe they are not complete geneologies.

Yes, I have also used this one as well in a past life. There are a number of problems with it, all of which are fairly mundane and plain to see, but are refused by Biblical literalists for the sake of, well, Biblical literalism. You can certainly scour the internet for both sides of the discussion, if you are so willing. I will only give an answer to your specific analogy only because investigating the genealogies presented in Matthew and Luke are getting wildly off topic from the original content of this post.

Maybe, given their audience Luke and Mathew mentioned the ones they thought important? Kinda like if you mentioned you’re italian, and I said, “oh my dad is italian” because it was relevant to my audiance (you) and then someone else says I’m German and I say “oh my dad is german”.

The fact is, you only have one biological father, and his name is X. X is whatever citizenship he currently holds, whether from a multitude of traditions or one, such as in Jesus’ case (Jewish). He has one name: Joseph (at least as far as we know, although it is highly debatable whether the man named “Joseph, father of Jesus” ever really existed). He of course, in turn, had one father – FX. Now, he may claim to be a descendent of many men and women – of course in a patriarchal society, the latter are usually ignored. But then would we not expect to see one lineage to be much longer from detail than the one that is going for a rich symbolic history of descendants? This is not the case though. We have nobodies interspersed with popular Israelite figures in both accounts.
Furthermore, Matthew explicitly is expected to be this detailed account since it states in 1:17:

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon to the The Anointed One fourteen generations.

.
Unless, of course, you must take 14 to be simply a symbolic number. But than what is to be taken as literal? There is no reason in either account that certain generations should be skipped. It is one thing to claim a past kingship, be it David, Solomon, or Henry the VIII, but there is no point to claiming descent from an obscure Jewish man, unless of course it is an attempt to realistically track the Messiah’s lineage – since how can a Lord not have a rich background of ancestors?

Bobbi, you seem like you have a thirst for the truth. I am not going to present obscure arguments or try to give a straightforward apology for agnosticism or an attack on Christianity. Only you can find this on your search for the truth about your faith, the scriptures you believe in, and the concepts you believe. Be honest with yourself. Unless you fear the result, be as critical towards your own beliefs as you are with others. Judging one’s ideas and weighing out the evidence is not only not a sin, it is commanded – albeit in odd and obscure means.

Only ask yourself this. Who was Jesus, really? Was Jesus a Christian? Why does certain statements of faith hold high value whilst others hold none? It is my belief that Jesus was a Jew, not only by birth, but through practice and belief. He not only was a Jew, but so were at least two of the authors (Mark and Matthew) of the people who wrote about them – and those two probably hail from the earlier traditions of the Jesus movements. Why is it then that the Jewish people have systematically rejected Jesus as their Messiah? Out of spite? Ignorance? Misunderstanding (or stupidity?)? Their evil and sinful nature? I am serious. Why is it that the most learned Jewish scholars cannot recognize the Messiahship of Jesus?

If you are interested, I would be begin my search of Jesus with people who are related to him: Jews.
So what do they have to say have Jesus’ genealogies?

I’ve also heard it mentioned that a “son” in the bible can also be refering to a grandson. So maybe they are not complete geneologies. For example, there is a verse in mark (10:47) where the nazerine cries out “Jesus, son of David”. Maybe, given their audience Luke and Mathew mentioned the ones they thought important? Kinda like if you mentioned you’re italian, and I said, “oh my dad is italian” because it was relevant to my audiance (you) and then someone else says I’m German and I say “oh my dad is german”. Sounds like a contradiction, but my dad is both of those in his geneology. It all has to do with audience. of course, I certainly haven’t studied at lenghth like you have. just a theory.

now your turn. Let me have it.

The Apostate, you once asked me about the differing lineage in Mathew verses Luke. I was led to an interesting article about a new theory I had not heard about…

This explanation is a common one among evangelical circles, but immediately discredited among many theologians and Biblical scholars alike. The main reason for this is because of the blatant dishonesty one must employ. The article you presented, which is hardly Missler’s original idea, argues the following:
a) Matthew presents Jesus’ lineage through the father’s line (Jacob as father of Joseph)
b) Luke presents Jesus’ lineage through the mother’s line (Heli as father of Mary)
But when was the last time Missler actually read his Bible? Missler even cites the passage: Luke 3:23-28. I am unsure why he believes verses 24-28 are needed as they merely continue the lineage. Luke 3:23 clearly states, however, that according the Lukan author, Heli (or Eli) is the father of Joseph, not Mary.

When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,

Hence, we have two different Gospels with two different fathers of Joseph. To insert a theory about Mary, one has to completely disregard the same book one is trying to argue as inerrant.

Mirjam,

Why are you so sure that this new Christian religion did actually originate in Palestine, leave Palestine and mingle with with Gnosticism?

I am not sure. The reason I prefaced what I said with “not speaking academically” is because I was stating something that I do not have much evidence for. I am, like many others, piecing together the best I can of a very obscure time in Palestinian history. The fact is that all evidence of any sort of “Christianity” – whether of a Jewish-Christ movment or a Pauline sect – comes from within Palestine. Paul’s early references to the Pillars of Jerusalem and even the Gnostic obsession with the holy city hardly suggests a different location for the birth of the religion.

Could it not be the other way round: that gnosticism (not the gnostic writings, but gnostic thought in general) was a breeding ground for Christianity, which might well have originated among diaspora jews?

Well that all depends on what it means to be “Christian,” doesn’t it? Were the earliest Christians “gnostic”? Was gnosticism rising in popularity in Jewish circles? What can we consider to be gnostic? Better yet, what is not gnostic? These are all questions that have to be asked when pondering the relationship between gnostic religions and early (or possibly contemporary) Christianity.

The sayings that are fond in both Thomas and the Synoptic gospels, in my view, don’t prove that the author of Thomas had access to Mark’s gospel. Thomas & Mark might have used the same sources/collections of ancient sayings, etc.

I suppose I could clarify my second last paragraph. In my larger work, I place more emphasis on the the historical uncertainty of the relationship between Mark and Thomas. I believe it is more likely that Mark was written before Thomas, but that later gnostic works did explicitly use Mark as a source. Thomas, on the other hand, represents a competing Christianity which would later develop into a more complex Gnostic Christianity. I believe that Mark and Thomas did, as you suggest, use similar sources, but I think that Thomas would have been well aware of the Markan gospel.

By the way, I’ve always seen Jesus’ secretive sayings in the context of his Essene background…

Which is very much disputed.

Anyway, interesting article, but there seem to be a few preconcepts in your article that you’re just taking for granted & that I’d like to read more about the evidence

Most likely. I had a hard time condensing everything from the larger work to get in all the evidence. If this is the sort of stuff you are interested in, be sure to check out the citations.

Thanks for the comment.

Why are you so sure that this new Christian religion did actually originate in Palestine, leave Palestine and mingle with with Gnosticism? Could it not be the other way round: that gnosticism (not the gnostic writings, but gnostic thought in general) was a breeding ground for Christianity, which might well have originated among diaspora jews? The sayings that are fond in both Thomas and the Synoptic gospels, in my view, don’t prove that the author of Thomas had access to Mark’s gospel. Thomas & Mark might have used the same sources/collections of ancient sayings, etc.

By the way, I’ve always seen Jesus’ secretive sayings in the context of his Essene background…

Anyway, interesting article, but there seem to be a few preconcepts in your article that you’re just taking for granted & that I’d like to read more about the evidence

The Apostate, you once asked me about the differing lineage in Mathew verses Luke. I was led to an interesting article about a new theory I had not heard about. I thought i’d give you the link to check it out. I have heard of the author but don’t know much about him. maybe you have some insight? the link is:

http://www.khouse.org/articles/1998/73/

Btw, I didn’t want to read Mark at first because it presented a “chuck norris” version of Christ’ life, meaning that it’s so fast paced and on to the next thing. Also, He seems to be able to take on the pharasees pretty well. I have heard that men tend to like (to read) Mark for this reason. Although I like Mark a lot better now that I have read it all. In fact, it has some of my fave verses in it now. Thanks for the interesting article.

Ah, thanks! One piece of criticism is that it seems to jump right into it, without any introductions. I don’t know if it’s because you’re taking it out of context of a larger work, but it’s slightly disorienting.

Thank you for the criticism. It is a thoroughly condensed piece that takes in parts from the larger work. I did the best I could to pack in as much information as possible without losing the specific examples that people can check out for themselves. The nice thing about Mark is that after reading my essay, you can sit and read Mark in one sitting to find criticisms or affirmations of my article.

Mark presents the picture of Christ as a servant. That’s why Mark includes no geology: who cares about the linage of a servant”

If you presuppose that Christ is presented as a servant, I suppose you could view it in that light. Do you believe Mark consciously left out a lineage for this reason? Considering the lack of historical details presented in Mark, is it not more likely that there was more of a need at the time to give some vague context to the oral traditions/teachings of the historical Jesus and the theological complexities of an attributed lineage simply was not needed yet?

Mark was written to servants and other “blue collar” workers. He wrote with a real mystery focus because to people low in the class system the idea of knowing something that upper crust folks didn’t had real demographic appeal.

That is an interesting post-Marxist speculation, but I believe it is quite anachronistic. There has been little consensus on the readership of Mark, other than its overall popularity (throughout the blossoming Christian world, crossing gender and status). Much of Mark is used not only to condemn spiritual elitists, but also showed how the people and even his own disciples simply did not understand his teachings. There is little implication that only the lower classes would have “got it.”

I think I see the mysterious nature of Jesus’ ministry in Mark to be deliberately trying to appeal to those involved in the “mystery cults” of the time who had secret initiation rites and cryptic knowledge and teachings that were bestowed upon only a select few.

Yes, I quite agree. From my readings of Gnostic texts, it was also very much along those lines. Salvation was not so much a function of having the correct belief, but of having the correct secret knowledge. Only the highest level initiates would ever be allowed to share the deepest secrets. Of course, that sort of thing still has much appeal today, for instance in Freemasonry.

The recently discovered gospel of Judas is also quite along these lines. Jesus tells Judas that he must betray Jesus, and be reviled for it, but it return Jesus tells him he will be rewarded in the hereafter, and then gives him secret knowledge about various angels and spirits, which is not given to the other disciples.

What I find interesting is, considering the gnostic overtones in Mark, that Mark was included in the bible at all. Or, perhaps those offending bits could have been edited out as overly problematic. But they have remained, artifacts of a belief system the early church tried so hard to eradicate.