Family tree… get it? I drew a tree? And it’s Christ’s family tree? Heh… heh… Yeah. It’s generations. Hard to do something ‘fancy’ with that.
BTW, my wife and children are descended from Solomon, so they’re part of Christ’s extended family. Cool, huh? (then again, if we’re all descended from Noah…)
Seeing as Jesus was born of Immaculate Conception, this family tree is fairly irrelevant to the story of Jesus, except to say that Jesus’ father figure, Joseph, was of the line of Abraham and David. Mary’s family tree would have been more relevant.
Nice art though. I like your use of colour saturation to give the “glow” of the text a direction.
I miss Mika and the gang.
What, but weren’t you just making that “Imaginaries” comic a few months ago or something? Someone sounds bitter…
Tom, do you have some purpose here?
Kuni, Jesus family tree is incredibly relevant. Both lineages of Mary, and the adoptive father of Jesus, Joseph, fulfill different purposes. I don’t have time to explain it all, I’d have to dig through for the specifics anyway. Both lineages define a royal family line that fulfills the prophecy that the Christ will be a son of David.
KC, I miss ‘em too. But I don’t have all the time in the world, and something had to give.
“Christ will be a son of David.” or Christ as son of God via Immaculate conception (read: no father other than the Holy Spirit – Joseph may have raised Jesus, but he didn’t father Jesus). These are mutually exclusive positions. Take your pick.
The former makes Joseph’s lineage relevant. The latter is the central to the entire Christian doctine.
Wait!
A third possibility is that “Immaculate Conception” is merely a cover story because Joseph impregnated Mary out of wedlock.
Yeah man just hanging out a chillin, talkin with my bros. I don’t see why you have to be such a downer >:(
Actually, Kuni, as I understand it, the immaculate conception refers to Mary’s lack of original sin and has nothing to do with her pregnancy by the Holy Ghost. I believe Catholic doctrine holds that Mary was immaculate from the moment of her conception as the Almighty spared her from the stain of original sin via Divine Grace so that she could fulfil the role of Holy vessel for the messiah. The whole Jesus thing is referred to as the Virginal Conception, at least for Catholics. I might be wrong, and since I’m an athiest I certainly have no dog in this race, but for the sake of historical accuracy I thought I’d drop my two cents’ worth here.
Yeah bro that’s true.
That’s Catholic doctrine, but it’s not scriptural.
Kuni, I’m sure as a student of religion, and history, you would know that adoption bestows all rights of a true born child onto the adopted. That includes lineage, royalty, etc. The point is that Joseph was a descendent of David. Mary was a descendent of David as well. So both in ‘blood’ through mary, and ‘position’ through Joseph, Jesus was by all rights a righteous inheritor of the throne of David.
Well, yeah, that’s Catholic Doctrine and my understanding is that the entire “Immaculate Conception” is strictly Catholic since the Protties have stripped all symbolism and ritual from the religion (I dunno, some sorta protest or something a few hundred years ago). My reply was to, in a sense, disabuse Kuni of the fallacy of applying that line of thought in a general sense across the spectrum of Christianity. His continued use of it in that regard needed to be adressed before any productive dialog could be had. Given your reference to him as a student of religion and history, this only makes the point even more important for him to consider when arguing religion. His use of the Immaculata to dismiss the entire notion of bloodline/lineage as irrelevant (which no less a personage than Joseph Campbell actually said, though for different reasons) left him open to a stunning riposte and I wanted to point out the chink in that armor so that he could be more effective in his arguments. Please, carry on.
Personally, if he keeps this up more than another day or two I’m taking it off my daily read list. My kids are old enough I don’t read fairy tales anymore.
I haven’t posted anything new in over a month, and you bother coming on here to say you’re leaving? Bye.
DerryJeffersonian: Thanks for the lesson in Catholic doctrine. I honesty did not know of that interpretation of immaculate conception. I am honoured that Hapajap would consider me a “student of religion, and history”. I consider myself more of an “enthusiast” of humanity than a serious student.
My original post was more a dig at Hapajap (”pressing his button” so to speak) – based upon our previous discussions, then a defensible position. Even so, The “Holy Bun in the Oven” cements that idea that Joseph did not sire Jesus. And leaves open, who (if any) the Earthly father is.
I had considered the “adoption” perspective, and found it a little wanting as it left the door open for anybody to be “adopted’ into the profecised position.
DerryJeffersonian: The “Holy Bun in the Oven”, pretty much put holes in the Catholic interpretation of “Immaculate Conception”. It illustrates that Mary was pregnant with Jesus, prior to being married to Joseph and by someone other than Joseph. Not so virtuous, unless…
It has been postulated that in ancient cultures, if a woman became pregnant in a dishonourable manner (via incest, rape, adultery or plain old pre marital sex – basically in any event other than within a consummated marriage) stories where told and spread by the family that the child was a “child of the gods”. In ancient Greece, Zeus was a favorite. Zeus would visit otherwise honourable women in various forms (swan, bull, mirror image of the husband) to sow his seed. Of course, this was not confined to Greece, but was thought to have been practiced throughout the ancient world (Mediterranian and Middle Eastern). In ancient India and further east, folk heros and other characters of high cultural esteem were said to be the father of “love childs”.
Mary’s predicament is a perfect match for such a scenario.
To be continued in the next thread….
Why yes hapajap .. I check out your site every day because you used to have awesome comics here and I didn’t mind spending a few seconds to see if something new had popped up. But now you are just feeding the deluded masses more of a fairytale that only serves the purpose of helping organized religion control the ignorant sheep (kinda like what Obama does). Unless you are just trying to impress us with your graphic skills, which I might add are pretty damn good. I see today you are back to posting the same useless information. Bye….
jfox: This is the perfect opportunity to enlighten the “the ignorant sheep” about how they are being deluded by this “fairy tale”, by deconstructing it. Or simply to gain enlightenment from whatever pearlas of wisdom that is presented.
Oh wait … you con’t read this because you’re gone…too bad, I was starting to feel like the only one “out in Left field” at this forum (Sawhowhatnow not withstanding)