Matthew 1:1-17 - The boring part?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Mendalla

Happy headbanging ape!!
Pronouns
He/Him/His
Advent is getting underway. We begin the journey that leads to the celebration of the birth of Jesus. So perhaps we can revive BPoTW and have some discussion about the events leading up to that momentous event.

So the obvious place to begin is looking at where he came from. And Matthew nicely helps us along by opening his gospel with Jesus' genealogy. Or is it?


Not the most exciting beginning to a book ever, let's face it. But why? What does it mean? And is it a "real" genealogy or something meant to help establish Jesus' place as a "Messiah"?

Of course, there are several genealogies throughout The Bible. It's a common trope in the culture, it seems. So where does this one fit in to that tradition?
 
It is something to be fathomed by the deepest of pools ... directed by a slippery lady! Fish hawking ...

The chemistry picks up from there ... amino acids? Difficult to extract from closed hard shells ... unless you spout something that is alien toem!

Foreign linguistic is like that demanding meaning from odd metaphor ... the NB Boson doesn't like anything but the kings Shakespearean form ...

In Acadia he is labeled as ruagh on the frank fringes ... what powers will do to gain avarice ... and communication fails! Complex myths construct themselves thus ... ridiculous formulations said to be fabricants! Poorly understood at least ... mist when the foundation crumbles ...
 
Last edited:
There are several differences between the genealogy in Matthew and the one in Luke. The important part is providing evidence that Jesus is a descendant of King David. The ironic part is that the genealogy provides contradictory evidence about the parentage of Jesus.
 
And theres the account by the Greek Philosopher Celsus, who claimed Jesus' father was a Roman Soldier named Panthera. No virgin birth involved, which seems more credible, but alas it is discounted by most scholars.
Back to the narrative.....
 
And theres the account by the Greek Philosopher Celsus, who claimed Jesus' father was a Roman Soldier named Panthera. No virgin birth involved, which seems more credible, but alas it is discounted by most scholars.
Back to the narrative.....
Given that Celsus was a critic of Christianity with no connection to the region where Jesus was born and living more than a century later, it is discounted with good reason. It makes more sense that Celsus was simply trying to throw shade on the virgin birth rather than having any actual information.

The virgin birth, IMHO, makes more sense as mythmaking than as an historical story. Similar stories exist about other historical figures in the classical era so it is quite in keeping with the culture. So there is, IMHO, no need to come up with a probably false story to refute it. Treat it for what it likely is, a myth that is more important spiritually than historically, and there is no need to refute it.
 
Imagine how this Jesus Syndrome spreads in a dark environment!

Is anything born in the dark night of the sol .. virgin? Initialization ... its coming or otherwise anon as a metaphor ... thus inky, blinking and anon ...

It didn't come to nothing ...
 
Interesting to note that most of the few women named in this list were Gentiles, rather than Hebrew (one more woman is ID'd only as the wife of Uriah, the Hittite). For a people seemingly obsessed with genealogical info to prove 'purity of blood,' this seems to not bode well for the Messiah.
 
Were Gentiles like a softer touch as a nebulous vision?

Imagine what this could bring on ... an understanding of literature to be fathomed out ...
 
Given that Celsus was a critic of Christianity with no connection to the region where Jesus was born and living more than a century later, it is discounted with good reason. It makes more sense that Celsus was simply trying to throw shade on the virgin birth rather than having any actual information.

The virgin birth, IMHO, makes more sense as mythmaking than as an historical story. Similar stories exist about other historical figures in the classical era so it is quite in keeping with the culture. So there is, IMHO, no need to come up with a probably false story to refute it. Treat it for what it likely is, a myth that is more important spiritually than historically, and there is no need to refute it.
I do often wonder why Myths are even necessary to follow great leaders. Are they still being created today? Do we need the virgin birth to follow Jesus? Would we forget without the celebration of myth?
 
I do often wonder why Myths are even necessary to follow great leaders. Are they still being created today? Do we need the virgin birth to follow Jesus? Would we forget without the celebration of myth?
George Washington and the cherry tree is a good modern example. There's probably some more recent ones. Just can't come up with any.

The use of stories to convey ideas, including the importance of a "great leader", is as old as humankind it seems. They do seem to be a well-tested way to communicate ideas and are certainly carry more emotional heft than a lecture or essay. We simply don't seem to get excited by bare facts the way we do a good story. Even in science, someone who can spin things into a compelling image or story often gets more weight from the general public than someone who simply produces academic writing. Carl Sagan is a good example of a scientist with a real skill at "mythologizing" science. Must be somewhere in our wiring, but not sure where.
 
I think of the common human discussion questions like "where do you come from?" "Who are your people?" "are you related to...?"

In many communities these sorts of questions are vital (maybe not as much as they once were) for helping people figure out how [if?] you fit into the community. Does the use of genealogies in Scripture and in other settings help address this point? Is it part of letting the Jewish population of Matthew's community know who Jesus wa/is?
 
Sort of a deliberate choice of ancestors to fit the stories shared by that community?
That's quite likely. I mean, for starters, they had to establish the connection to David since it was widely believed the Messiah would be descended from his line.
 
That's quite likely. I mean, for starters, they had to establish the connection to David since it was widely believed the Messiah would be descended from his line.
AS I am currently starting work on this week's sermon and a passage from Isaiah 11 which begins "A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow[a] out of his roots." most definitely that is part of it.
 
I noticed a couple of things. The first was the mathematical precision of the generations. 3 (a magic number) * 14 (another magic number) totalling 42 (which is Douglas Adams' magical number).

Secondly, although almost all of the begats are men, the few women mentioned are unconventional ones, let's say. Tamar, about whom there seem to be some rather incestuous narrative, then there's "Uriah's wife", who is unnamed here, but named in the Hebrew scripture as Bathsheba, then there's Ruth the Moabite, whose love for her mother-in-law is quoted in many hetero alliances.
 
I noticed a couple of things. The first was the mathematical precision of the generations. 3 (a magic number) * 14 (another magic number) totalling 42 (which is Douglas Adams' magical number).

Secondly, although almost all of the begats are men, the few women mentioned are unconventional ones, let's say. Tamar, about whom there seem to be some rather incestuous narrative, then there's "Uriah's wife", who is unnamed here, but named in the Hebrew scripture as Bathsheba, then there's Ruth the Moabite, whose love for her mother-in-law is quoted in many hetero alliances.
The lineage in Luke is Mary's line.
 
And Mara I awe was said to go with the winds ... giving support to driving sands (earth), Joel (rain) and some kind of glowing thing in the depths of the pool ... as the entire mess whips through a cosmos said to be some kind of clear plastic item ...

Hoo dah thought ... from there a sprout ... it just occurred ... spontaneity that some mortal tried to claim by stating he saw the light overhead?

Roman man-god? I look for god-men with a sense of virtue ... and that's the truth (I find truth elusive here in this domain shaped by Romans).

It is how the temporal thing goes ... on the run like a ship of fools in an unknown Skye ... coordinates? They lost eM!

If one examines the myths one thing stands out as Chanson said in another string ... "we find we don't know much"!

It is the mellowing surge ... quite timely like Scrooge's spirits ... 3 qnd him taking into the doubts of Tobias then familiar as Timmy ... some go there for coffee and jaw over human stupidity over the Guilder's Rule ... thus information etc. remains buried and sacred in an elaborate alien field ... dark until cleared and polished off ... Hoes are like that ... there is even a novel called The Polished Hoe ... a dark myth! Not for those that do not read into dah noos ... psyche being frightfully alien!

Neurological unknown ... a bit quantum like J Cash's trip with the gambler ... on a train out of ... god knows where ... we seem to know little thus scattered detailing ... forms an image! Pixels ... of the Celt variety ... you can almost feel the light descend! The heat builds ... reactions?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top