The questions of Mary’s parents and lineage, revisited

[The Anointed]

Zipporah is mentioned only once more in the Bible; namely, in Numbers xii. 1, where she is referred to as "the Ethiopian woman," for having married whom Moses is upbraided by Miriam and Aaron.

She is mentioned in the Book of Exodus as the wife of Moses, and the daughter of Reuel/Jethro, the priest or prince of Midian and the spiritual founder and ancestor of the Druze.

Zipporah, is the first wife of Moses, and the daughter of Jethro, one of the two Father-in-laws to Moses and it was not her that caused Miriam and Aaron to confront Moses. Aaron and Miriam knew when Moses first returned to Egypt, that he was married to Zipporah and had no problems with that.

Hobab was the brother of Zipporah, son of Jethro and father of Jephunneh, who was the widow of a man from the tribe of Judah, and mother of the 40 years old Caleb.

It was after Moses had asked Hobab, who knew the wilderness like the back of his hand to be their guide which request was refused, that Moses Married Jephunneh the mother of his now 40year old adopted son ‘Caleb,’ which incensed Aaron and Miriam.

Judges 4: 11; “In the meantime, Heber the Kenite had set up his tent close to Kedesh near the oak tree at Zanannim. He had moved way from the other descendants of Hobab the Father-in-law of Moses.

“chathan” the Hebrew for “Wife’s Father, is used here in Judges 1: 16, and 4: 11, in reference to Hobab the Kenite, who was the father of Jerhunneh, the second wife of Moses, and it was this union that so incensed Miriam and Aaron.

There’s more than one way to skin a cat. If Hobab would not guide them through the wilderness, perhaps his daughter ‘Jephunneh’ and her 40year old son ‘Caleb,’ would.

 

[The Anointed]

Thank you for the than you, @sooda , for the “like”.

I think @The Anointed is stereotyping me as if all atheists and agnostics don’t know anything about the Bible or about the churches.

Sometimes there are atheists or agnostics who have been ones all their lives, but there are atheists and agnostics who were former Christians (or former Jews).

Just because they don’t believe anymore, it doesn’t mean they have forgotten what they have learned or were taught.

It would seem that The Anointed like to put ALL atheists and agnostics into a single pigeonhole, without even bothering to learn about their past and experiences.

Not all Christians take the Bible literally, not all metaphorically, not all think the Bible is inerrant, though some do.

Gnostic The Lost One wrote……… I think @The Anointed is stereotyping me as if all atheists and agnostics don’t know anything about the Bible or about the churches.

The Anointed………. If you believe that a God exists, then you are not an agnostic, for the definition of Agnosticism, is “The Philosophical view that it is impossible to know whether or not a god exists. Therefore, claiming to be an agnostic you are not denying that a god might exist, you just believe that it cannot be proved that there is something that has neither a beginning or an end, which something has become this entire boundless cosmos, and has developed a mind that is the compilation of all the information gathered by all the diverse life-forms that it, the eternal something has become.

Gnostic The Lost One wrote……… Sometimes there are atheists or agnostics who have been ones all their lives, but there are atheists and agnostics who were former Christians (or former Jews).

The Anointed………. And there are millions of Christians and Jews, who were once agnostics or atheists.

Gnostic The Lost One wrote……… Just because they don’t believe anymore, it doesn’t mean they have forgotten what they have learned or were taught.

The Anointed………. Most of those have not abandoned the God of the bible, for they were never taught the truths as revealed in the scriptures, as anyone who listens to your arguments are fully aware.

They have abandoned the teachings of the universal church of Emperor Constantine, which was established in the 4th century, Which teach that the man Jesus was an eternal and immortal God, who existed before the creation of the cosmos, and who, some two thousand years ago, came down to earth and entered the womb of some supposed ever VIRGIN, where he created for himself a human-like body that was not of the seed of Adam and therefore not under the penalty of death incurred by Adam who has become the human race.

After walking the earth in that human like body, disguised as a human being, he ended up by taking that lump of animated meat to the cross, before ascending once again to his eternal heavenly home.

Mate, I’m in my late seventies and after having studied the Scriptures, I rejected that rubbish as taught by the mother church of Rome and all her denominational daughters, who were spawned from her false spirit/teachings, some sixty years ago.

Gnostic The Lost One wrote……… It would seem that The Anointed like to put ALL atheists and agnostics into a single pigeonhole, without even bothering to learn about their past and experiences.

The Anointed………. All those who claim to be atheists have put themselves into a single pigeonhole, as Atheism is defined as “The doctrine that there is no God or that the “WORD” God or statements about it or using it are meaningless.

So all TRUE Atheists, are godless people, who have no hope other than when their body is returned to the universal elements from which it was created, THEY, the invisible mind that had developed within those bodies from the information taken in through the senses of that body, dies with it. What a hopeless life they live.

So too, it is with those who claim to be agnostics, the definition of which, is; “One who is uncertain or uncommitted on any particular question at issue.”

Gnostic The Lost One wrote……… Not all Christians take the Bible literally, not all metaphorically, not all think the Bible is inerrant, though some do.

The Anointed……….To the Christian, the “WORD OF GOD” is the heavenly manna, for man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word of the Lord.

From the Wisdom of Solomon concerning the heavenly Manna, 16: 20-21; “Instead whereof thou gavest thy people angels food to eat, and bread ready for use didst thou provide from heaven without their toil. Bread having the virtue of every pleasant savour, and agreeing to every taste.

For thy substance manifested thy sweetness toward they children, ministering to the desire of the eater, and transforming itself according to every man’s choice.”

No two individuals are mentally the same, the bread that has come down to us from the ends of time has a different flavour according to each individual.

 

[Mark La Buda]

In the New Testament, no where does the Bible explicitly say who were Mary’s parents. Nor does it ever say from which tribe she belonged to.

Most of the time, the gospels would say she was “mother of Jesus” or “wife of Joseph”, but it never say who was her father or who was her mother.

But in Luke 1, Mary is linked to Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. Elizabeth was said to be the descendant of Aaron (Luke 1:5), and therefore a Levite, and it also say Elizabeth was Mary’s relative or kinswoman (1:36), which would implied that she also Levite.

I have noticed some Christians here would say that Mary was a descendant or the “daughter of David”, but such linkage to King David never mentioned, not even alluded to. Only Joseph was ever mention to be a descendant of David, not Mary.

And we have 2 family trees of Jesus, from gospels of Matthew and Luke, both mentioning only Joseph’s name to different fathers:

1. “16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.” Matthew 1:16
   
2. “Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,” Luke 3:23.

I know that some Christians here as well as scholars claimed that Heli was only Joseph’s father-in-law, and that Heli was Mary’s father, but that not what the gospel say.

The only time that I have seen Mary’s parents being explicitly named, comes from the apocryphal text, the Gospel of James, written in the 2nd century CE, which stated that Joachim was her father, not Luke’s Heli. Anne was said to be Mary’s mother. (See Infancy Gospel of James (Roberts-Donaldson translation) at Early Christian Writings.)

Whether the Gospel of James’ claim of Mary’s parents being Joachim and Anne is true, no one really know, because there are no ways to confirm it, since neither Luke’s, nor James’ have legal papers, like a birth certificate, or tombstone of Mary that says whose her parents were. But the gospel of James is only the source that indicate Mary was a “daughter of Joachim”.

And the only name mentioned in the NT, that is linked to Mary (other than Joseph and Jesus) is Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron.

Your thoughts?

Yes, I agree. However, consider that, in fact, Joseph’s linage is from David. In Matthew’s account he is not a true “blood line” because Jesus did not have a biological father. However, his step-father was also from the linage of David. In Luke’s account, Mary’s linage is through Nathan (David’s son). (1 Chronicles 3:5) According to Jewish custom, daughters were not identified in genealogical records; therefore, Joseph is identified as the son of Heli-although being Mary’s father-because it was understood that Joseph was a son-in-law. This was important for inheritance rights under Jewish customs. Compare Romans 1:2, 3.

 

[gnostic]

However, his step-father was also from the linage of David. In Luke’s account, Mary’s linage is through Nathan (David’s son). (1 Chronicles 3:5)

That’s conjecture.

If Joseph has already lineage that go back to David, there are no reasons to it would be a tree with his father’s line, so there are no reasons to put him under his father-in-law’s ancestry.

You wouldn’t have Joseph being put under in-law’s genealogy unless Mary’s father has actually ADOPTED Joseph as his son.

If the two gospel authors (whoever they may be) were indeed Jewish then they would know this.

No both gospels are two different sources, with two different genealogical lines of Joseph, and I think they are independently invented, not knowing what the other author were doing.

And you forgetting, in luke1, Elizabeth, her kinswoman was descendant of Aaron, a Levite, which would imply that Mary herself a descendant of Aaron and of Levi.

 

[Triumph]

In the New Testament, no where does the Bible explicitly say who were Mary’s parents. Nor does it ever say from which tribe she belonged to.

Most of the time, the gospels would say she was “mother of Jesus” or “wife of Joseph”, but it never say who was her father or who was her mother.

But in Luke 1, Mary is linked to Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. Elizabeth was said to be the descendant of Aaron (Luke 1:5), and therefore a Levite, and it also say Elizabeth was Mary’s relative or kinswoman (1:36), which would implied that she also Levite.

I have noticed some Christians here would say that Mary was a descendant or the “daughter of David”, but such linkage to King David never mentioned, not even alluded to. Only Joseph was ever mention to be a descendant of David, not Mary.

And we have 2 family trees of Jesus, from gospels of Matthew and Luke, both mentioning only Joseph’s name to different fathers:

1. “16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.” Matthew 1:16
   
2. “Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,” Luke 3:23.

I know that some Christians here as well as scholars claimed that Heli was only Joseph’s father-in-law, and that Heli was Mary’s father, but that not what the gospel say.

The only time that I have seen Mary’s parents being explicitly named, comes from the apocryphal text, the Gospel of James, written in the 2nd century CE, which stated that Joachim was her father, not Luke’s Heli. Anne was said to be Mary’s mother. (See Infancy Gospel of James (Roberts-Donaldson translation) at Early Christian Writings.)

Whether the Gospel of James’ claim of Mary’s parents being Joachim and Anne is true, no one really know, because there are no ways to confirm it, since neither Luke’s, nor James’ have legal papers, like a birth certificate, or tombstone of Mary that says whose her parents were. But the gospel of James is only the source that indicate Mary was a “daughter of Joachim”.

And the only name mentioned in the NT, that is linked to Mary (other than Joseph and Jesus) is Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron.

Your thoughts?

The bloodline of Mary is irrelevant. The Christ Jesus is male not female. Mary's genetic DNA can only produce a daughter from her bloodline never a son. So even if Mary had been related to David/Abraham she could never produce a son for them.
A ‘normal’ human cell is diploid because it contains 2 copies of each of the 23 chromosomes. Included in these 46 chromosomes are sex chromosomes X and Y. A normal human male has one X- and one Y- chromosome. They are often denoted 46, XY male. A normal human female has two X chromosomes, and is denoted 46, XX female. At conception only one of those genetic sex chromosomes is dominate, either the XY making a male or the XX making a female.
Jesus the Christ was created by God with fresh, never in the body of any male, XY gender chromosome making Jesus male and the son of God our creator, that designed all human DNA. Joseph is the male DNA from David/Abraham but Jesus is not.

 

[Triumph]

The bloodline of Mary is irrelevant. The Christ Jesus is male not female. Mary's genetic DNA can only produce a daughter from her bloodline never a son. So even if Mary had been related to David/Abraham she could never produce a son for them.
A ‘normal’ human cell is diploid because it contains 2 copies of each of the 23 chromosomes. Included in these 46 chromosomes are sex chromosomes X and Y. A normal human male has one X- and one Y- chromosome. They are often denoted 46, XY male. A normal human female has two X chromosomes, and is denoted 46, XX female. At conception only one of those genetic sex chromosomes is dominate, either the XY making a male or the XX making a female.
Jesus the Christ was created by God with fresh, never in the body of any male, XY gender chromosome making Jesus male and the son of God our creator, that designed all human DNA. Joseph is the male DNA from David/Abraham but Jesus is not.
Also, the Levite tribe was the military tribe, and they often took female slaves from battles and married them. Elizabeth could have been of any bloodline/race and there is no proof that Mary is even a bloodline Jew because of that. The wives were forced to become Jews joining the religion/Hebrew government under their laws. King David was of the tribe of Juda. The tribe of Levi by Jewish law are not allowed to own land or rule over land, so no "king" can be from the tribe of Levi.

 

[Triumph]

'Tis a puzzlement, to be sure

View attachment 26963

Adapted from HERE​

Yes, very interesting comparison. You may already know...
Matthew is an Apostle that was well educated and spent a lot of time with Jesus receiving information. I believe Matthew's details.
Luke is not an Apostle but is a sincere disciple seeking Jesus as healer and savior but with less knowledge than the Apostles were given. Luke writes exactly the information he hears from others in his search for truth like a reporter would. Luke repeats what has been told to him, but he also listens to Pharisee Paul that sometimes gives correct information and sometimes does not. But Luke truthfully reports what happens in events he experiences regardless of the source.

Mark is not an Apostle either, he is a sincere disciple of Jesus, but Mark has more knowledge of Jesus than Luke as Mark spent time with Apostle Peter that tutored him. Papias, in the early 2nd century AD, wrote about a tradition from the late 1st century AD that Mark was the agent and scribe for Peter. Apparently, the “author” of the Gospel was Peter, while the writer and publisher was Mark.