Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: The Rainbow Christ

Expand Messages
  • dottie zold
    Main article: Zerubbabel The genealogies in Luke and Matthew appear to briefly converge at Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, though they differ both above Shealtiel
    Message 1 of 418 , May 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      The genealogies in Luke and Matthew appear to briefly converge at Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, though they differ both above Shealtiel and below Zerubbabel. This is also the point where Matthew departs from the Old Testament record.
      Zerubbabel displays a plan of Jerusalem to Cyrus the Great
      In the Old Testament, Zerubbabel was a hero who led the Jews back from Babylon about 520 BC, governed Judah, and rebuilt the temple. Several times he is called a son of Shealtiel.[92] He appears once in the genealogies in the Book of Chronicles,[93] where his descendants are traced for several generations, but the passage has a number of difficulties.[94] While the Septuagint text here gives his father as Shealtiel, the Masoretic text instead substitutes Shealtiel’s brother Pedaiah—both sons of King Jeconiah, according to the passage. Some, accepting the Masoretic reading, suppose that Pedaiah begot a son for Shealtiel through a levirate marriage, but most scholars now accept the Septuagint reading as original, in agreement with Matthew and all other accounts.[95]
      The appearance of Zerubbabel and Shealtiel in Luke may be no more than a coincidence of names (Zerubbabel, at least, is a very common Babylonian name[96]). Shealtiel is given a completely different ancestry, and Zerubbabel a different son. Furthermore, interpolation between known dates would put the birth of Luke’s Shealtiel at the very time when the celebrated Zerubbabel led the Jews back from Babylon. Thus, it is likely that Luke’s Shealtiel and Zerubbabel were distinct from, and perhaps even named after, Matthew’s.[3]
      If they are the same, as many insist, then the question arises of how Shealtiel, like Joseph, could have two fathers. Yet another complex levirate marriage has often been invoked.[3] Bauckham, however, argues for the authenticity of Luke alone. In this view, the genealogy in Chronicles is a late addition grafting Zerubbabel onto the lineage of his predecessors, and Matthew has simply followed the royal succession. In fact, Bauckham says, Zerubbabel’s legitimacy hinged on descending from David through Nathan rather than through the prophetically cursed ruling line.[13]
      The name Rhesa, given in Luke as the son of Zerubbabel, is usually seen as the Aramaic word rēʾšāʾ, meaning head or prince. It might well befit a son of Zerubbabel, but some see the name as a misplaced title of Zerubbabel himself.[13] If so, the next generation in Luke, Joanan, might be Hananiah in Chronicles. Subsequent names in Luke, as well as Matthew’s next name Abiud, cannot be identified in Chronicles on more than a speculative basis.
      Dottie: from another site...i am feeling Pandira here:

      "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner

      --- On Sat, 5/1/10, dottie zold <dottie_z@...> wrote:

      From: dottie zold <dottie_z@...>
      Subject: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: The Rainbow Christ
      To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Saturday, May 1, 2010, 10:25 AM

      Genealogy of Jesus according to Luke
      1. God
      2. Adam
      3. Seth
      4. Enosh
      5. Cainain
      6. Mahalalel
      7. Jared
      1. Enoch
      2. Methuselah
      3. Lamech
      4. Noah
      5. Shem
      6. Arphaxad
      7. Cainan
      8. Shelah
      9. Eber
      10. Peleg
      11. Reu
      12. Serug
      13. Nahor
      14. Terah
      1. Abraham
      2. Isaac
      3. Jacob
      4. Judah
      5. Pharez
      6. Hezron
      7. Ram
      8. Amminadab
      9. Nahshon
      10. Salmon
      11. Boaz
      12. Obed
      13. Jesse
      14. David
      1. Nathan
      2. Mattatha
      3. Menna
      4. Melea
      5. Eliakim
      6. Jonam
      7. Joseph
      8. Judah
      9. Simeon
      10. Levi
      11. Matthat
      12. Jorim
      13. Eliezer
      14. Joshua
      1. Er
      2. Elmadam
      3. Cosam
      4. Addi
      5. Melchi
      6. Neri
      7. Shealtiel
      8. Zerubbabel
      9. Rhesa
      10. Joanan
      11. Joda
      12. Josech
      13. Semein
      14. Mattathias
      1. Mahath
      2. Naggai
      3. Hesli
      4. Nahum
      5. Amos
      6. Mattathias
      7. Joseph
      8. Jannai
      9. Melchi
      10. Levi
      11. Matthat
      12. Eli
      13. Mary[8] & Joseph*
      14. Jesus
      This genealogy descends from the Davidic line through Nathan, who is an otherwise little-known son of King David, mentioned briefly in the Old Testament.[9] The intervening generations are a series of otherwise unknown names, but the number of generations is chronologically quite plausible.
      In the ancestry of David, Luke agrees completely with the Old Testament. Cainan is included between Shelah and Arphaxad, following the Septuagint text (though omitted in the Masoretic text followed by most modern Bibles). In continuing the genealogy all the way to Adam, the progenitor of all mankind, the gospel is seen as emphasizing Christ’s universal mission.
      Augustine[10] notes that the count of generations in Luke is 77, a remarkable number symbolizing the forgiveness of all sins.[11] This count also agrees with the seventy generations from Enoch[12] set forth in the Book of Enoch, which Luke probably knew.[13] Though Luke never counts the generations as Matthew does, it appears that he too follows the hebdomadic principle of working in sevens. However, Irenaeus, one of the earliest witnesses, counts only 72 generations from Adam.[14]
      Since the nature of Luke’s genealogy has made it particularly susceptible to scribal corruption, determining the original text from the manuscript evidence has been especially problematic. The most controversial section, oddly, is in the ancestry of David, which is well established in the Old Testament. Although the reading “son of Aminadab, son of Aram,” in agreement with the Old Testament, is well attested, the Nestle-Aland critical edition, considered the best authority by most modern scholars, accepts the variant “son of Aminadab, son of Admin, son of Arni,”[15] counting the 77 generations from Adam rather than God.[16]
      Luke’s qualification “as was supposed” (ενομιζετο) avoids stating that Jesus was actually a son of Joseph, since his virgin birth is affirmed in the same gospel. There are, however, several interpretations of how this qualification relates to the rest of the genealogy. Some see the remainder as the true genealogy of Joseph, despite the different genealogy given in Matthew. Others see the lineage as a legal ancestry, rather than an ancestry according to blood—Joseph is thus a legal son of Eli, perhaps a son-in-law or adopted son. Still others suggest that Luke is repeating an untrustworthy record without affirming its accuracy. Lastly, many see “as was supposed of Joseph” as a parenthetical note, with Luke actually calling Jesus a son of Eli—meaning, it is then suggested, that Eli (Ηλι, Heli) is the maternal grandfather of Jesus, and Luke is actually tracing the ancestry of Jesus according to the flesh through Mary.[17]
      Elsewhere Luke states (though some scholars express doubt[18]) that Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, was a cousin (or relative) of Mary and was descended from Aaron, of the tribe of Levi.[19] Some have inferred from this that Mary herself was also a Levite descended from Aaron, and thus kingly and priestly lineages were united in Jesus.[20] Thomas Aquinas, however, argued that the relationship was on the maternal side.[21]
      do these not look like fish: i digress ~ sorry :(     and they are divided as one can see as well...

      and this below is the lower spinal area again, i forget what it is called already...but note what he is painting here with that sketch i offered earlier...and who is this saint alban....i know i am supposed to know this saint from the works, but from where,
      File:Albani-Psalter Abstieg Christi ins Totenreich.jpg
      this must be those in osiris...in the way that they are entombed in the boat of isis...well can't say it right,
      Oh, here we go, daughter of the moon, daughters of the Moon bearing forth.....okay, uhoh.what does that mean whom they beared....this was zarathustra and what does he have to do with lucifer and with jehova....
      jeezus! all these frieken connections....i feel like because we've seen teh resurrection christ in his rainbow now we shall have to know is going to be resurrected in kind back into the spiritual words alah 'the flesh will become word'.....and this must move as zarathustra and lazarus as steiner says these two are connected to the second epoch......i need a new word now instead of whew....its more like shwwwuuuuph, and interestingly enough this takes us to the mary with the swan.....light and dark....
      File:Rahab of Jericho.jpg
      This Rachab is most likely Rahab the harlot, whose story is told in the Old Testament, though some question the identification. Matthew is unique in naming her as the wife of Salmon and mother of Boaz. The Talmud[25] says that Rahab married Joshua. The unusual spelling of her name, paralleled only in Josephus, may result from the unique tradition that Matthew drew from here, which Bauckham suggests is connected to a passage in Chronicles[26] mentioning Salma and Rechab.[24]
      That women are mentioned at all, when such genealogies are typically so focused on the male line, is remarkable. Four women are included early in the genealogy—Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and “the wife of Uriah” (i.e., Bathsheba)—and a fifth, Mary, concludes the genealogy as the mother of Jesus. Why Matthew chose to include these particular women, while passing over others such as the matriarchs Sarah, Rebecca, and Leah, has been much discussed.
      There is assumed to be a common thread among these four women, to which Matthew wishes to draw attention. Some point out their Gentile origin: Rahab was a Canaanite, Bathsheba was married to a Hittite, Ruth was from Moab and sometimes seen as a Moabite, and Tamar’s origin is unclear—thus Matthew prepares the reader for the inclusion of the Gentiles in Christ’s mission, contrasting their faith with the faithlessness of the Jews. Others point out their sinfulness: Tamar and Rahab were prostitutes, Bathsheba was an adulteress, and Ruth is sometimes seen as seducing Boaz—thus Matthew emphasizes God’s grace in response to sin. Still others point out their unusual, even scandalous, unions—preparing the reader for what will be said about Mary. None of these explanations, however, adequately befits all four women.[27] Nolland[23] suggests simply that these were all the known women attached to David’s genealogy in the Book of Ruth.[28]
      Omission of generations
      Old Testament[29]Matthew
      The conclusion of the genealogy proper is also unusual: having traced the ancestry of Joseph, Matthew identifies him not as the father of Jesus, but as the husband of Mary. The Greek text is explicit in making Jesus born to Mary, rather than to Joseph. This careful wording is to affirm the virgin birth, which Matthew proceeds to discuss, stating that Jesus was begotten not by Joseph but by God.
      "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner

      A Jewish tradition relating Mary to Luke’s genealogy is recorded in the Doctrina Jacobi (written in 634), in which a Tiberian rabbi mocks the Christian veneration of Mary by recounting her genealogy according to the tradition of the Jews of Tiberias.[48] A century later, John of Damascus and others report the same information, only inserting an extra generation, Barpanther (Aramaic for son of Panther, thus indicating a misunderstood Aramaic source).[49] A certain prince Andronicus later found the same polemic in a book belonging to a rabbi named Elijah:[50]
      Why do Christians extol Mary so highly, calling her nobler than the Cherubim, incomparably greater than the Seraphim, raised above the heavens, purer than the very rays of the sun? For she was a woman, of the race of David, born to Anne her mother and Joachim her father, who was son of Panther. Panther and Melchi were brothers, sons of Levi, of the stock of Nathan, whose father was David of the tribe of Judah.[51]
      Each of these texts then goes on to describe, just as in Africanus (but omitting the name of Estha), how Melchi was related to Joseph through a levirate marriage.
    • val2160
      Those who don t feel this Love By Rumi Those who don t feel this Love pulling them like a river, those who don t drink dawn like a cup of spring water or take
      Message 418 of 418 , May 19, 2010
      • 0 Attachment

        Those who don't feel this Love

        By Rumi

        Those who don't feel this Love
        pulling them like a river,
        those who don't drink dawn
        like a cup of spring water
        or take in sunset like supper,
        those who don't want to change,

        let them sleep.

        This Love is beyond the study of theology,
        that old trickery and hypocrisy.
        If you want to improve your mind that way,

        sleep on.

        I've given up on my brain.
        I've torn the cloth to shreds
        and thrown it away.

        If you're not completely naked,
        wrap your beautiful robe of words
        around you,

        and sleep.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.