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

SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: The Rainbow Christ

Expand Messages
  • Kim
    The two brothers, where: Jehoiakim s blood line thus came to an end in his grandson Salathiel - indicated by termination of the red line. Here we have the Red
    Message 1 of 418 , May 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      The two brothers, where:
      Jehoiakim's blood line thus came to an end in his grandson Salathiel - indicated by termination of the red line.
      Here we have the Red and Blue stola/Elisha.

      Kim
      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold <dottie_z@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Genealogy of Jesus according to Luke
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > God
      > Adam
      > Seth
      > Enosh
      > Cainain
      > Mahalalel
      > Jared
      >
      >
      > Enoch
      > Methuselah
      > Lamech
      > Noah
      > Shem
      > Arphaxad
      > Cainan
      > Shelah
      > Eber
      > Peleg
      > Reu
      > Serug
      > Nahor
      > Terah
      >
      >
      > Abraham
      > Isaac
      > Jacob
      > Judah
      > Pharez
      > Hezron
      > Ram
      > Amminadab
      > Nahshon
      > Salmon
      > Boaz
      > Obed
      > Jesse
      > David
      >
      >
      > Nathan
      > Mattatha
      > Menna
      > Melea
      > Eliakim
      > Jonam
      > Joseph
      > Judah
      > Simeon
      > Levi
      > Matthat
      > Jorim
      > Eliezer
      > Joshua
      >
      >
      > Er
      > Elmadam
      > Cosam
      > Addi
      > Melchi
      > Neri
      > Shealtiel
      > Zerubbabel
      > Rhesa
      > Joanan
      > Joda
      > Josech
      > Semein
      > Mattathias
      >
      >
      > Mahath
      > Naggai
      > Hesli
      > Nahum
      > Amos
      > Mattathias
      > Joseph
      > Jannai
      > Melchi
      > Levi
      > Matthat
      > Eli
      > Mary[8] & Joseph*
      > 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 bloodâ€"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 Eliâ€"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]
      >  
      >
      >
      > Genealogy of Jesus according to Matthew
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Abraham
      > Isaac
      > Jacob
      > Judah & Tamar
      > Pharez
      > Hezron
      > Ram
      > Amminadab
      > Nahshon
      > Salmon & Rahab
      > Boaz & Ruth
      > Obed
      > Jesse
      > David & the wife of Uriah
      >
      >
      > Solomon
      > Rehoboam
      > Abijam
      > Asa
      > Jehoshaphat
      > Jehoram
      > Uzziah
      > Jotham
      > Ahaz
      > Hezekiah
      > Manasseh
      > Amon
      > Josiah
      > Jeconiah
      >
      >
      > Shealtiel
      > Zerubbabel
      > Abiud
      > Eliakim
      > Azor
      > Zadok
      > Achim
      > Eliud
      > Eleazar
      > Matthan
      > Jacob
      > Joseph & Mary *
      > Jesus
      > 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,
      >  
      >
      >  
      > 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....
      >  
      >
      >  
      >  
      > Women
      > 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 genealogyâ€"Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and “the wife of Uriah” (i.e., Bathsheba)â€"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 unclearâ€"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 Boazâ€"thus Matthew emphasizes God’s grace in response to sin. Still others point out their unusual, even scandalous, unionsâ€"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
      >
      >
      > David
      > Solomon
      > Rehoboam
      > Abijam
      > Asa
      > Jehoshaphat
      > Jehoram
      > Ahaziah
      > Jehoash
      > Amaziah
      > Uzziah
      > Jotham
      > Ahaz
      > Hezekiah
      > Manasseh
      > Amon
      > Josiah
      > Jehoiakim
      > Jeconiah
      > Shealtiel
      > Zerubbabel
      >
      > David
      > Solomon
      > Roboam
      > Abia
      > Asaph
      > Josaphat
      > Joram
      > â€"
      > â€"
      > â€"
      > Ozias
      > Joatham
      > Achaz
      > Ezekias
      > Manasses
      > Amos
      > Josias
      > â€"
      > Jechonias
      > Salathiel
      > Zorobabel
      > 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.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > David
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Solomon
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Nathan
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Eleazar
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Levi
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Matthan
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Estha
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Melchi
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Panther
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Jacob
      >
      >
      > (unnamed)
      >
      >
      > Eli
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Anne
      >
      >
      > Joachim
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Joseph
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Mary
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Jesus
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Oddly, Melchi is thus always described as the father of Eli, while Luke reads “Eli, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi.” Bede assumed that Africanus was mistaken and corrected Melchi to Matthat.[52] Since papponymics were common in this period,[53] however, it would not be surprising if Matthat were also named Melchi after his grandfather.
      > Controversy has surrounded the name Panther mentioned above, because of a charge by Celsus (writing about 178) that Jesus was actually an illegitimate son of a soldier named Panther.[54] Epiphanius, in refutation of Celsus, writes that Joseph and Cleopas were sons of “Jacob, surnamed Panther.”[55] A connection is often seen to the Ben Pandera mentioned in the Talmud.
      > A distinct tradition is found in the Cave of Treasures, probably composed in Syriac about the third century. The genealogy of Jesus from Adam down to Mary is given much as in Matthew, with the omissions filled in and, remarkably, the mother of each generation provided. Mary is made a cousin of Joseph, as her father Jonachir was a son of Matthan and twin brother of Jacob. Mary’s mother is identified as Anne (Ḥana), daughter of Paqud.[56]
      > Fascination with the life and family of Anne led to the spread of numerous medieval legends about her and inspired the artistic motif of the Holy Kinship. A number of medieval sources offer conflicting accounts of the parents of Anne:
      >
      > Byzantine sources record a tradition showing precisely how Mary was related to Elizabeth.[57] Andronicus quotes this passage from the same book:[50]
      >
      > There were three sisters of Bethlehem, daughters of Matthan the priest, and Mary his wife, under the reign of Cleopatra and Sosipatrus, before the reign of Herod, the son of Antipater: the eldest was Mary, the second was Sobe, the youngest’s name was Anne. The eldest being married in Bethlehem, had for daughter Salome the midwife; Sobe the second likewise married in Bethlehem, and was the mother of Elizabeth; last of all the third married in Galilee, and brought forth Mary the mother of Christ.[58]
      > The Cave of Treasures, as noted above, names Anne’s father as Paqud son of Eleazar.
      > The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew names her father as Issachar of the tribe of Judah.[59] Later elaborations name her mother as Susanna.[60]
      > By the fifteenth century, another account was current naming her parents as Stollanus and Emerentia.[61]
      > Anne Catherine Emmerich, a nineteenth-century mystic, claimed to have visions revealing the ancestry of Mary in some detailâ€"combining several medieval versions, she names Anne’s parents as Eliud and Ismeria.[62]
      >  
      > Maternal ancestry in Luke
      > A more straightforward explanation is that Luke’s genealogy is of Mary, with Eli being her father, while Matthew’s describes the genealogy of Joseph.[3]
      > Luke’s text says that Jesus was “a son, as was supposed, of Joseph, of Eli” (in the Greek: υιος ως ενομιζετο ιωσηφ του ηλι).[76] The qualification has traditionally been understood as acknowledgment of the virgin birth, but some instead see a parenthetical expression: “a son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Eli.”[77] In this interpretation, Jesus is called a son of Eli because Eli was his maternal grandfather, his nearest male ancestor.[3] A variation on this idea is to explain “Joseph son of Eli” as meaning a son-in-law,[78] perhaps even an adoptive heir to Eli through his only daughter Mary.[79] An example of the Old Testament use of such an expression is Jair, who is called “Jair son of Manasseh”[80] but was actually son of Manasseh’s granddaughter.[81] In any case, the argument goes, it is natural for the evangelist, acknowledging the unique case of the virgin birth, to give the maternal genealogy of Jesus,
      > while expressing it a bit awkwardly in the traditional patrilinear style.
      > Lightfoot[78] sees confirmation in an obscure passage of the Talmud,[82] which, as he reads it, refers to “Mary daughter of Eli”; however, both the identity of this Mary and the reading are doubtful.[83] Patristic tradition, on the contrary, consistently identifies Mary’s father as Joachim. It has been suggested that Eli is short for Eliakim,[3] which in the Old Testament is an alternate name of King Jehoiakim,[84] for whom Joachim is named.
      > The theory neatly accounts for the genealogical divergence while accepting the text of the Gospel. It is consistent with the early tradition ascribing a Davidic ancestry to Mary. It is also consistent with Luke’s intimate acquaintance with Mary, in contrast to Matthew’s focus on Joseph’s perspective. On the other hand, there is no explicit indication whatsoever, either in the Gospel or in any early tradition, that the genealogy is Mary’s.
      > The claim that Luke gives Mary’s genealogy is mentioned in a single extant medieval text, in which pseudo-Hilary cites it as an opinion held by many, though not himself.[85] This claim was revived by Annius of Viterbo in 1498[86] and quickly grew in popularity. It has gained acceptance by countless scholars (though by no means all[87]), and remains the most frequently cited harmonization of the Gospel genealogies.
      > [edit] Maternal ancestry in Matthew
      > A minority view holds that while Luke gives the genealogy of Joseph, Matthew gives the genealogy of Mary. A few ancient authorities seem to offer this interpretation.[88] Although the Greek text as it stands is plainly against it, it has been proposed that in the original text Matthew had one Joseph as Mary’s father and another as her husband. This neatly explains not only why Matthew’s genealogy differs from Luke’s, but also why Matthew counts fourteen generations rather than thirteen. Blair sees the various extant versions as the predictable result of copyists repeatedly attempting to correct an apparent mistake.[34] Others argue that here the Aramaic original of Matthew used the word gowra (which could mean father), which, in the absence of vowel markings, was read by the Greek translator as gura (husband).[89] In any case, an early understanding that Matthew traced Mary’s genelaogy would explain why the contradiction between Matthew and Luke
      > apparently escaped notice until the third century.
      >  
      > Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel
      >  
      > Main article: Zerubbabel
      > 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 Pedaiahâ€"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 rÄ"ʾšāʾ, 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:
      >  
      >  
      > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shealtiel
      > The Genealogy from Adam to Jesus Christ
      >
      > "But Jechonias appears to have had a son of his own by this widow of the royal line. This son's name was Salathiel (No. 2 and No. 56 in the two pedigree lines). By this marriage of a widow to Jechonias, these two boys - sons of the same mother - would become brothers by Jewish custom. However, Salathiel appears to have died childless, though not until he had reached manhood and married a wife. Jehoiakim's blood line thus came to an end in his grandson Salathiel - indicated by termination of the red line. But as it happens the actual title to the throne remained active. The curse of Jeremiah 36:30 was to be fulfilled not by the removal of the title itself from Jehoiakim's line but by the denial of that title to anyone who happened to be a blood relative in the line. With the death of Salathiel this blood line terminated. But now, according to Jewish custom as set forth in the principle of the Levirate (Deut. 25:5,6), it became incumbent upon Pedaiah, the
      > deceased Salathiel's (step) brother, to take his widow and raise up seed through her who would not therefore be of Salathiel's blood line but would be constituted legally as Salathiel's son through whom the title would pass to his descendants. The son of this Levirate union was Zerubbabel. In Matthew 1:12 and Luke 3:27 Zerubbabel is listed legally as Salathiel's son: but in 1 Chronicles 3:19 he is listed as the son of Pedaiah by actual blood relationship. In the terms of biblical reckoning these two statements are in no sense contradictory. We might wish to be more precise by substituting such extended terms of relationship as son-in-law, stepson, and so forth. But Scripture is not required to adopt our particular terminology. It is required only to be consistent with itself, and the facts of the case as recorded of those who were the actors in the drama are precisely as stated. We thus have a remarkable chain of events. Jehoiakim has a son, Jechonias,
      > who has a son, Salathiel, who by Levirate custom has a son named Zerubbabel. This son, Zerubbabel, has no blood line connection whatever with Jechonias, for he has no blood relationship with Salathiel. The blood relationship of Zerubbabel is with Pedaiah, and through Pedaiah with Pedaiah's mother, and through this mother with Neri. Thus Neri begat a grandson, Salathiel, through his daughter; and Salathiel "begets" a son, Zerubbabel, through Pedaiah. The blood line thus passes through Zerubbabel: but so does the title also. The former passes via Pedaiah's mother, the latter passes through Salathiel's father. And though this mother and this father were also man and wife, the blood line stopped with Salathiel who literally died childless. It is necessary to emphasize this word literally, for it appears that it was literally true. Jeremiah 22:30 had predicted that Jechonias would also die "childless"-but we are reasonably sure that this was not literally
      > the case, for he had a son Salathiel whom we cannot otherwise account for."
      >
      > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Jacob_van_Loo
      >  
      >  
      >  
      >  
      >  
      >  
      >
      > --- 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, 9:33 AM
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > but where is it in scripture kim, it has to be found in scripture for my christian family, d
      >
      >
      > "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, Kim kimgm@... wrote:
      >
      >
      > From: Kim kimgm@...
      > Subject: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: The Rainbow Christ
      > To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Saturday, May 1, 2010, 9:16 AM
      >
      >
      > Sophia is daughter of the Moon and Mother of the Earth.
      > Kim
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold
      > dottie_z@ wrote:
      > >
      > > Daughter of Heli is daughter of the Sun....in Luke.....so this Mary is
      > daughter of the sun....i wonder if that makes the other mary the
      > daughter of the moon, in Mathew, d
      > >
      > >
      > > "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work
      > out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
    • 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.