Tertia Pars
Lecture 76: Christ's Flesh from Adam and Davidic Descent

Transcript
================================================================================

In mathematical training, that's kind of, you know, rather than wonder, right? It's kind of what you'd expect, right? Okay? But in a sense, that's what's involved here, in a way, though, see? Because the humble person, when they're praised in this way, right, it's contrary to what they would expect, right? They don't think so highly of themselves, so... You know? Okay? So there's something similar about, you know, the way wonder is aroused in this case, right? The humble person. And the way the wonder is aroused, especially the philosophers, right? And Einstein, you know, in the... There's a little autobiographical sketch of his life, right? He speaks of that wonder he has as a child, right? And his father brought him a magnet, right? And the idea that one body could move another body with not coming into contact with it, apparently, right? Is what struck his, what? With wonder, yeah. Now to the second, huh? About doubt now. To the second, it should be said. This is the big difference between Mary, in part, and Zachariah, yeah. He doubted, right? He's doubting Thomas. And so he's punished by not being able to, what? Speak until... Yeah. To second, it should be said that Ambrose expressly says upon Luke that the Blessed Virgin did not doubt of the words of the angel, right? He's a pretty big chap that Ambrose is one of the four or five great doctors of the Western Church. Before he says, more temperate, right? Or moderate. His response of Mary than the words of the priest, I guess that's the reference to... Yeah. For he said, how can this come about? And he responds, whence do I know this, right? She said... How is it going to come about? Yeah. But he said, he responded to the angel. Yeah, how do I know this? For he denies himself to believe, who denies himself to know this? But she does not doubt what is going to be done, who asks in what way it's going to come about, huh? Yeah. In a sense, if she really is asking that seriously, how is it coming about? Then she doesn't believe it's going to come about. She just wants to know how it's going to be done, right? Because she doesn't know man, she says, right? Okay. Augustine, however, seems to say that she, what? Doubted, huh? I don't know about you, Augustine. For he says in the book of the questions of the Old and of the New Testament, to marry, what? Hesitant, is it? And doubt about the concept. The angel preaches the, what? Possibility. But such a doubt, he says, Margie says, aberrationis. Then, what? Inucidulity, right? That's kind of a subtle thing, though, but I think, you know, there's a difference there, right? You know? Christmas song, what manner of child is this, right? That's a very wonderful thing that's taking place, you know? That's not really doubting that it took place, right? Just kind of amazed that it would take place, right? And therefore, the angel induces a, what? Proof. Not to taking away the infidelity, but to removing, right? Or you might say tempering re-appreciation, right? So it doesn't become stupifaction. Stupifaction is kind of the name for excessive, you know? But it's an impediment to investigation. Huh? A lot of pain, okay? Wow. When we see, when we saw your cut, we were all stupifizing. Now, to the third, it should be said, as Ambrose says in the examiner, on account of this, many, what? Who were sterile, came before, right? That the, what? Giving birth? Might be believed, right? And therefore, the conception of Elizabeth, the sterile one, is brought in, not as a sufficient argument, right? But as a kind of, what? Figurative example. And therefore, for the confirmation of this example, there is joined an efficacious argument from the Divine Omnipotence. I've often tried to say, you know, that the changing of water into wine is kind of preparation for the, what? Eucharist. And it's not, in fact, a greater thing as Eucharist, obviously. But it's more known, right? Because when the water is changed into the wine, the accidents of the water don't remain, right? But the wine has its, you know? So you know there's taken place, the water can change into wine, right? But on Eucharist, you don't know this, right? So in some way, it prepares us, right? He can turn water into wine. Why can't he turn wine into blood, right? That's the difference, really, right? And so it prepares the way, right? Even though it's less here. But again, you know, Thomas will say that all the miracles of the Old Testament, all the miracles are ordered to the incarnation, right? But they're all something less than the incarnation, right? But they kind of, what? Dispose us, right? You heard that little one I was giving there with the word from the first beginning to the first cause. You know, and you say, see, in the fifth book of wisdom, the first word is beginning. And the second word is cause, right? Okay? And Thomas gives us the reason why Aristotle gives beginning before cause is that beginning is more general than cause. Every cause is a beginning, but not every beginning is a, what, cause, huh? Okay? Now, both of these words are words equivocal by reason, huh? But the first meaning of beginning is beginning of the row, right? The beginning of the depth, right? The beginning of the, what, continuous, right? Now, if you say that the surface is the beginning of the table, right? The surface is a beginning that has a beginning. And you can say that the line is the beginning of the, what, surface, right? But the line that is the beginning of the surface is also a beginning that has a beginning. What's the beginning of the line? Yeah. But now, what is the point? Well, in that sense, it's a beginning. Does it have a beginning? No. So, behind the surface is the beginning that is the line. And behind the line, the beginning that is the point. But the point has no beginning, right? That's what you're going to mean. You don't have a cause, right? There's a cause that has a cause. Maybe that cause has a cause. And eventually you come to a cause that doesn't have a cause. And this is much easier to see, isn't it? That the point is the beginning that has no beginning, right? And that God is a mover that has, that has not moved, right? Or that he's a maker that is not made, right? But it kind of prepares the way for it, right? It's not just a strange idea, right? That there should be a cause that doesn't have a cause, right? Now, it's kind of a stupid objection that you used to hear when you were a kid, you know, you get the first, you know, question of the catechism, who made me, you know? You say, well, God made me, right? And then they'll say, well, then who made God, see? And, uh, well, first, the answer is not, there's no answer to that, right? No one made God, right? And then they used to say to you, you know, well, everything was made by someone, you know? And, uh, no. And then they used to say to you, and then they used to say to you, and then they used to say to you, and then they used to say to you, and then they used to say to you, and they used to say to you, and they used to say to you, and then they used to say to you, But you might kind of think of that, right? Because everything you run into this life was made by somebody or something, right? And so you kind of, you know, by induction, get the idea that everything has a maker, right? Everything was made by something, right? So who made God? You say, well, no, no. But it's kind of strange, you know, to say that there's a maker that was not made, right? But already you see this very first meaning of beginning, the beginning of the continuous, right? That there's a beginning of the continuous that has no beginning, right? There's kind of an order there, you know? So if you say, why is the cube limited? Well, it's because the squares that bind it are limited, right? Well, why are they limited, you know? The squares, well, because of lines. And why are the lines limited? Because of the point. And why is the point limited? Well, it's not, you know? The point is a beginning or a limit, you could say, too, that has no beginning or has no limit. So it kind of anticipates what you'll find out later on about causes. But it's not as a Fitchian's argument, as you say, but it kind of leads you from what is more known to you, right? Because the general is more known, right? The beginning is more known than the word cause. And the most well-known meaning of the beginning is when we get in there, right? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Well, we just finished the last one. Yeah. We're going to go into the conception here, right? Niggard truth, as Shakespeare says in the sonnet. I'm also trying to do an article. Okay. So let's look premium here to the 31st question. Or actually a couple of questions here, I guess. 32 and 33. Then we're not to consider about the conception of the Savior. And first, as regards the matter from which his body was conceived. Secondly, as regards the author of the conception. And third, as regards the mode and order of the conception. So that's these next three questions. Now about the first, eight things are asked. First, whether the flesh of Christ was taken from Adam. Second, whether it was taken from David, huh? It's interesting, you should ask these two, huh? Third, about the genealogy of Christ, which is placed in the gospel. And fourth, whether it was suitable for Christ to be born of what? And whether the body of, his body was formed from the most pure bloods of the Virgin, right? And fourth, or six, rather. Whether the flesh of Christ was in the old fathers, the antique fathers, according to some, what? I think sign, whether the flesh of Christ was in the old fathers, subject to sin, right? And further, whether it was, what? Decimated. Came forth and then tithed. Tithed in the... Oh, that's it, yeah. Yeah. Who was tithing? Yeah. Because you gave a tenth. Decimated. In the loins of, I guess, of Abraham, right, huh? So Adam and David and Abraham are going to come in here, huh? I shall mention. To the first, then, one goes forward thus. It seems that the flesh of Christ was not taken from Adam. For the apostle, and that's said of what? St. Paul by Antoinette Messiah. For the apostle says in the first epistle of the Corinthians, the 15th chapter, the first man from earth, earthly, the second man from heaven, heavenly. But the first man is Adam. The second man is Christ. Therefore, Christ is not from Adam, but he has an origin distinct from him. Moreover, the conception of Christ ought to be most miraculous. But it is more a miracle to form the body of man from the slime of the earth than from human matter, which is drawn from Adam. Therefore, it seems that it was not suitable that Christ be taken, that Christ took from Adam flesh. Therefore, it seems that the body of Christ ought not to be form of the mass of the human race derived from Adam, but from some other matter. Yeah, but Adam is the one who sinned, right? Moreover, sin entered into this world through one man, too, but Adam. Because all nations in him originally sinned, as is clear through the teaching of Romans chapter 5. But if the body of Christ was taken from Adam, it would be in Adam originally when he sinned. Therefore, he would have contracted the original sin, which is not befitting the purity of Christ. Therefore, the body of Christ was not formed from matter taken from Adam. Against all this is what the apostle says in the epistle to the Hebrews chapter 2. He never, what, took hold of the angels, the son of God, but he took over the seed of, what, Abraham. But the seed of Abraham was taken from that of Adam. Ergo, the body of Christ was formed of matter taken from Adam. But Thomas says, I answer, it should be said, that Christ took human nature, that he might purge it from, what, corruption. He took on human nature. But human nature would not need, what, purgation, except insofar as it was infected by an origin, vitiated, which from, what, sinned from Adam. And therefore it is suitable that flesh taken from the matter derived from Adam, that he might cure that very nature through taking it on. Now, what about this teaching of the apostle, heavenly? The first effort should be said that the second man, that is Christ. Interesting, he's called the second man. That is, Christ is said to be of heaven, not as regards the matter of his body, right? But either as regards the power that formed his body, or as regards his, what, divinity, right? But according to his matter, the body of Christ was earthly, just as the body of, what, Adam. Now, what about being very miraculous? The second should be said that, as has been said above, the mystery of the incarnation of Christ is something miraculous, not as ordered to the confirmation of faith, but rather as article of faith, or the chief article of the faith. And therefore, in the mystery of the incarnation, it's not required, which should be more a miracle, as in miracles which were, what, the confirmation of faith, but what was more suitable to the divine wisdom, and more suitable for human salvation, which is required in all things which are of faith. Or it can be said that, in the mystery of the incarnation, not only is to be noted a miracle, conceived from matter, but more from the way of conception and of giving birth, because it was a virgin who conceived and brought forth God. That's why Isaiah spoke of it. And to the third, it should be said, that as has been said above, the body of Christ was in Adam, according to his body's substance, because the matter of the material matter, the matter of the material body of Christ was derived from Adam. But it was not there according to what? His seed, right? Because it was not conceived from the male seed. And therefore, he did not contract original sin as others, who were derived from Adam by way of the, what? Yeah. What happened to the virgin, I don't know. I thought he might have the beginning of the solution in that question. No, I think he's stuck for... Stuck in the slime of the earth. Stuck in the slime of the earth. The evil man does this out after him, huh? In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, Guardian Angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Dios, gracias. God, our Enlightenment, Guardian Angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and rouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Very, very, very. Help us to understand what you have written. Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. I'll be able to get to Article 2, but Article 3 will completely go mad, I think, you know. But we'll look at it anyway. We're up in Question 31, Article 2, is where we're supposed to begin today, yeah? To the second one goes forward thus. It seems that Christ did not take flesh from the seed of David. For Matthew gives us the text of the genealogy of Christ, and brings it down to Joseph, eh? But Joseph was not the father of Christ, eh? As has been shown above. Therefore, it seems that Christ was not descended from the genus of David, eh? Moreover, Aaron was of the tribe of Levi, eh? This is clear from Exodus, Chapter 6. Maria, however, the mother of Christ, was the relative, shall we say, of Elizabeth, eh? Who was the daughter of, what? Aaron, as is clear from Luke 1. Since, therefore, David was of the tribe of Judah, as is clear in Matthew 1.3, it seems that Christ did not descend from the seed of David. That's even a strong argument in the first one, because she seems to be of the same tribe as Elizabeth, and that's the priestly, yeah. Moreover, Jeremiah, Chapter 22, it is said of Jeconius, write this man down as sterile. For there is not be from his seed a man who will sit upon the seed of, what, David, eh? But if Christ did is said, if Christ did is said, he will sit upon the seed of David, eh? But Christ was not of the seed of Jeconius, and consequently not of the genus of, what, David. Because Matthew from David brings down the series of generations through Jeconius. But again, this is what is said in Romans 1.3, who is made from the seed of David according to the, what, flesh. I answer it should be said, eh? That Christ, especially, is said to be the son of two of the ancient fathers, eh? To wit, Abraham and David, eh? That's sometimes said there at the beginning of the genealogy, eh? They say the son of David and Abraham. As is clear in Matthew 1.1, he begins at the genealogy. And for this, there is a manifold or multiple reason, eh? First, because to these, in a special way, the promise about Christ was made, eh? For it was said to Abraham, Genesis chapter 22, in your seed we have blessed all the nations of the earth, which the apostle, meaning St. Paul, of course, expounds about Christ in Galatians 3, saying, To Abraham were made the, what, promises, and to his seed, in the singular, eh? He's not saying to seeds, as were in the minis, but as it were in one, to your seed, which is, what, Christ, eh? But to David it is said, Of the fruit of your womb, I will place, Not fintries, That's not womb, is it, huh? Fintries. Yeah. Okay. How would you say, Maybe the fruit of your womb. Yeah. I will place upon your seed, right? Whence the people of the Jews, Jewish people, Receiving with honor a king, said Matthew 21, Hosanna to the son of, what? David, eh? So that's because the special promises were given to these men, right? Mm-hmm. About the thing. The second reason is because Christ was king, prophet, and what? Priest. Abraham, however, was a, what? Priest. This is clear from this, that the Lord says to him, Take the, what, that's the? I forgot, that's the place of the son, right? Was that there? No. The different one? This is the one he did at night, and the terrible, uh, terror came over, and is this what that's called? Yeah. Okay. Um, he was also a prophet, according as it is said in Genesis 20. He is a prophet, and will pray, what? For you. David, however, was both a king and a prophet, like in the Psalms, yeah. That's, that's, that's beautiful. They tie it up with those three, yeah? Yeah. But Abraham is not a king, and David is not spoken of as a priest, so you need both of these guys to get those. Mm-hmm. Get prophet twice, but priest once, and king once, huh? Third reason is because in Abraham, first was begun circumcision, huh? And David, however, most of all was made known in the choice of God, huh? According to that of the first book of the Kings, chapter 13, the Lord, uh, seeks, uh, from self a man according to his own heart, huh? And therefore, the son of both, Christ is most especially said. It might be shown to be in salvation to circumcision, I guess that's the Jews, right? Mm-hmm. And to the choice of the Gentiles, right? Mm-hmm. Now, the first objection, huh? To the first effort should be said that that objection was that of the Manichaean Faustus, huh? The great master, huh? Mm-hmm. I guess, you know, when, uh, Gustin started to ask some questions about the Manichaeans, and he said, well, wait till Faustus come, and he'll clear it up, you know? Like the old teacher, he says, wait till Deconic come, and he'll clear up your problem. Well, Deconic, he cleared it up very clearly, you know? But, uh, Faustus, you know, was talking about things that Gustin wasn't able to judge, but he realized he didn't know the liberal arts. So how can you know these higher things that doesn't know the lower things? So one senior John said, what if Gustin's not been trained in the liberal arts, what would have happened to the greatest? My dear. Okay. So this is the objection of the Manichaean Faustus, huh? Wishing to prove that Christ was not the son of David, huh? Because he was not conceived from Joseph, right? Up to whom Matthew brings down or produces the series of the generation of Christ, huh? against which Augustine responds in the 23rd book against Faustus. That's a little more mature, Augustinella, huh? The first time you met the guy. For since the same evangelist says that the man of Maria, or the husband, was what? Joseph, right? And the mother of Christ to be a virgin and Christ to be from the seed of David, what does there remain except to believe that Maria, Mary, was not extraneous from the kinship of David, right? And not in vain is Joseph called his, what? Called her spouse on account of the confederation of their souls, huh? Although there is not a mixture in the flesh, right? And more on account of the dignity, the male dignity for the Jews, the order of generations was brought down to, what, Joseph. Thus, therefore, we believe that Mary also was of the, what? Yeah, yeah, yeah, kin of David. Because we believe scriptures, huh? Which say both, that Christ was born from the seed of David according to the flesh and his mother was Mary, so we put two and two together and you had to say that, huh? Mm-hmm, not... not lying down to man, but a virgin, for as Jerome says upon Matthew, from one tribe were Joseph and Mary, whence according to the law, one was what, kind of forced to take someone from, yeah, that was generated from the same root, yeah, and that's told, I think, in zero sometimes in these tribes in the Near East today, right, huh? Even some of the Lebanese, their family will come to this country, and their sons grow up, they go back to their village, find a wife of them, the Hali is a prime example, but this is very common, that they won't marry an American-born girl, even if she's Lebanese, so I'm going to go back to our village, and I'll be there, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Now, the third objection here, kind of a, I don't understand it for myself. To the third, it should be said that through that prophetic authority, as Ambrose says upon Luke, is not denied that from the seed of Jeconius, those who came afterwards were born, right? Right. And therefore, his seed was Christ, and that Christ reigned is not against, what? Prophecy. For he did not reign by a worldly or secular honor, for he himself said, my kingdom is not of this world. Let that go. Now, this Article 3 is going to, you know. You haven't got to pull your hair out. And you'll be well, you'll notice these long inches. Reminds me of my brother Richard and his wife were reading the Bible together, right? And of course my brother's a philosopher and his wife is, well not, she has a doctorate in history, right? But at that time she had, you know, she had a master's in history. And so they read the Bible and so on. And, you know, all of a sudden Dolores says, you know, they're talking about something in a chapter. But he died, you know, three chapters back. And so my brother is scratching his head. How can he still be walking around? So I don't know. I don't know if they've resolved it, you know. But I mean, you know, it's not good to read the Bible with a historian because there are little things. But he died, you know, three chapters ago or something, you know. So how can he still be around? And there wasn't some way to explain it, but it's, you could spend the rest of your life trying to understand some of these things. Yeah. I know it was used before and how, I've heard it used by those who want to argue for Christ being ignorant or making mistakes. He cites the passage when King David went with his soldiers and ate the bread that wasn't permitted. And he named the high priest when Abiathar, I think it was a high priest. Well, you go to the Old Testament where that passage was, Abiathar wasn't a high priest. It was his son who was a priest. Some other name, I can't remember his name. So they said, see, Christ made a mistake. He couldn't quite remember the passage and he made a mistake. He's like everybody else would. And then, well then, I don't know if this is an actual resolution of the Christmas, because it says in his Passion, it refers to Annas the high priest and Caiaphas the high priest. Well, Annas was the father-in-law. But they still referred to him as high priest. So it's possible, the same with genealogies. They may say, refer to one man who's already dead, and when they're talking about his son or something. Now, they're interviewing Sir Palin on TV, and he called governor, right? He's not governor anymore. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, I heard that. You're saying, they do that with, I heard it last year, what's his name? Luke Gingrich. They still call him Mr. Speaker. Yeah, yeah. It's just an honorary thing. They continue to call him. Of course, they do it with President Bush or Clinton or any of them. And they would still call him Mr. President, and it's an honor. That's what he takes in the Holy Office. So, anyway, those kinds of things sometimes can settle historical questions. Well, we'll see if you can work your way out of this. Houdini of the text here, yeah. Somebody still call you the brother. Yeah. To the third one goes forward thus. It seems that the genealogy of Christ is unsuitably woven by the evangelists. For it is said in Isaiah chapter 53 about Christ, who can narrate his generation? Therefore, the generation of Christ should not be what? Narrated, right? Moreover, it is impossible for one. One man to have two fathers, right? But Matthew says that Jacob generated Joseph, the husband of Mary. But Luke says that Joseph was the son of Eli. And therefore, they wrote things that are contrary to each other. I've seen these modern scholars say, you know, we don't even know the names of the apostles, you know. Because, you know, the names given there in the Gospels are not exactly, in every name, the same, right? And so, do some of them have two names? But, anyway. Moreover, they seem in some things to be diversified from each other. For Matthew, in the beginning of the book, beginning from Abraham, going down, down to what? Joseph. Yeah, it was great, Joseph. Enumerates 42 generations. Luke, however, after the baptism of Christ, laying down the generation of Christ, beginning from Christ, and bringing the number of generations up to God, makes generations 77. Both extremes being numbered with them, right? Therefore, it seems that, unsuitably, they describe the generations of Christ. So, you shouldn't compare the Gospels, you should stick with one Gospel. Moreover, in the fourth book of Kings, chapter 8, we read that, what? Joram generated Ocasius, to whom succeeded what? Joas, his son, and to him succeeded his son Amasius, after whom reigned his son Azarius, who was called what? Azaius. To whom succeeded Joathin, his son. Matthew, however, says that Joram generated what? Ocasius, huh? Therefore, it seems unsuitably to describe the generation of Christ. Three kings in the middle being what? Yeah. So, can I be said to generate my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren and my great-great-grandchildren? In some way, probably. Probably, yeah. Moreover, all who were described in the generation of Christ had fathers and mothers, huh? And many of them from these had what? Brothers? Brothers? Matthew, however, in the generation of Christ, names only three mothers. Thomas, Thammar, and then they say Rahab, I guess, this is the text here. Ruth, and the wife of Uriah, huh? Okay. But he names his brothers Judas and Jeconius, and also Phares and Zara, none of whom Luke lays down, right? Therefore, it seems unsuitably that the evangelists have described the genealogy of Christ, huh? Thomas is very brief and said contra. He said contra, it's like toritas scripturae, right? And Thomas often says, you know, to deny any part of scripture is to undermine faith, right? Because it's the word of God, huh? And his response here is almost as brief, right? I actually, it should be said that, as St. Paul says in the second epistle to Timothy, chapter 3, All sacred scripture is divinely, what? Inspired, huh? So omnisum, all. But the things which come about divinely are most ordered, according to that of Romans, chapter 13. The things which are from God are ordered, right? The divine wisdom, huh? Whence, in a suborder, the genealogy of Christ is described by the evangelists. So we know that to be so. But then there are all these objections, huh? That they'll make you pull your hair out. Now, the first objection, of course, is easy to handle. To the first, therefore, it should be said that, as Jerome says upon Matthew, Isaiah spoke about the generation of the divinity of Christ, huh? But Matthew narrates the generation of Christ according to his, what? Humanity. That's more narratable, right? Now, however, unfolding, explicating the mode of the incarnation, right? Because this also is, what? Ineffable, huh? I was just reading Thomas there at the beginning of the 17th chapter there, John, right? Where Christ has these prayers, right? And in the prayer for himself, he has a definition of eternal life. And then he mentions, you know, to know you, the Father, and him whom we will send, Jesus Christ. And one way of understanding the second part of that is that our beatitude will consist not only in knowing the divinity, but also the humanity of Christ and understanding the incarnation in the way that we don't understand it in this life, right? Nevertheless, you can, what? Nevertheless, you can, what? rate the human generation, right, the fathers at whom Christ went forth according to the flesh. Okay, now we get to the air racing of the second objection here. What about these two fathers, at least in name here, of Matthew and what? Luke, right? To the second, then, it should be said that to this objection was Julian, the apostate, right? He wanted to move us back to the Greek gods and goddesses, didn't he, Julian? Who's that modern writer there that tried to go back to Julian a bit? Kevin's always arguing with William F. Buckley, what is his name? Was he someone contemporary? Yeah, contemporary, yeah. He said, too bad that Julian didn't succeed, you know, people are saying that, you know. Too bad that the devil didn't succeed. You know, this recent document of the Pope there for the, to facilitate the Ankins who want to come into the church, you know, which is on the internet, you can see it there. I was looking at it the other day. But anyway, you know, of course, the left-wing press went berserk about this. And I don't know, it was one of the big, Washington Post, one of the big newschapers anyway, they decided to interview, of all people, Dawkins. Well, he thought about this. Who? Dawkins, you know. All of it. Yeah. Dawkins? And I guess he's really a rabid anti-Catholic, right? And he was saying, you know, the worst sources of evil in the world are one that's put among them, the Catholic Church, right? So, I mean. Wow. Wait, is this that little guy in the wheelchair? No, no, that's that. Oh, Hawkins. Yeah, yeah. Hawkins. Yeah, yeah. But he's incredible, these people. So anyway, to this objection, which Julian the Apostate moved, right? So, diversely, it's just answered by some, right? For some, as Gregory Nazianus says, and this is not necessarily Gregory Nazianus himself is giving this solution, right? But he says, some say this. Say that those whom the evangelist enumerates are the same, right? But under what? Diverse names. They're binomials, right? Binomials. Oh, that's interesting. Yeah. But this star in unpotest, this cannot stand, huh? That's where they solve some of these problems, like they're saying the man has, what? Yeah. It says you do that about the apostles, I think, don't they? Because Matthew places one of the sons of, what? David to it, what? Solomon. Luke, however, another, Nathan, right, huh? Which, according to the history of the books of the kings, is stand our brothers, right? I think it's one of these guys descended from one, one from the other, I guess. That's right. It must be. Whence others say, huh? That Matthew gives the true genealogy of Christ, huh? This is kind of a strange solution. Luke, however, the one that is thought to be so, right? Whence Luke begins, as was thought, the son of Joseph, huh? Well, that's kind of strange that the scripture would do this, huh? For there were some among the Jews who, on account of the sins of the kings of Judah, right, believed that Christ came from David, but not to the kings, right? But to another, what, stock, yeah, of private individuals, right? That he would be born, right, huh? It's kind of an odd explanation. Others say that Matthew laid down the fleshly fathers, right? And Luke, the spiritual fathers. To it, the just men, who are said to be fathers, is an account of the likeness of what? Anastostia, that's virtue, virtue. Now, in the book about the questions of the New and Old Testament, which is Augustine's work, it is answered that it should not be understood that Joseph, by Luke, is said to be the son of Eli, right? But because, what? Eli and Joseph were of the, what? Christ, from David, in diverse ways. Whence about Christ is said that he was thought to be the son of Joseph, right? And that he also was the son of what? Eli, what do you mean he was thought to be? I don't know. As if it were to say that Christ, for that reason, was said to be the son of Joseph, he could also be said to be the son of what? Eli. Eli, and of all those who, what? Descended from David, huh? As the apostle says, Romans 9, 5. From whom, meaning the Jews, Christ is according to the, what? Flesh. That's a little strange way of speaking there, but it's all these grandchildren that the Burkus have, you know? They're descended from Richard, Marcus, and Duane, huh? Yeah. That's a big. But some only from Burkwain, some only from Richard, some only from Marcus, right? That's kind of hard to see, huh? That's the Jewish. Yeah. There's plenty of passages in the scriptures that are ambiguous. Yeah. It's kind of left that way. Yeah. Now, Gustin, in the book about the questions of the Gospels, huh? Solves it in three ways. Stores your hair. Stores, saying, three causes come together, or occur, right? Of which the evangelist, what? Followed, what? One of them, I guess. For either one evangelist, the father Joseph from which he was generated, names, huh? Another, either his, what? Maternal uncle, is it? Yeah. Okay. Grandfather, okay. Or some from, what? He's more famous or greater relatives, huh? Or one was the natural father, Joseph, and the other, what? That makes sense, huh? So if I was adopted by some man, I would call him my father, but I might be looking for my real father, my natural father. So in a sense, I have two fathers, and you could say my father was the man who adopted me, or my father was the man who generated me, right? So that's one way out of it, and I don't know if you can say that that is the solution, but there's, you know, possibly, yeah. Or in the, what, custom of the Jews, with, what, one died without sons, the other one taking the, the propinquus, the newer one, taking his wife, right? Like the, they try to get Christ there, the seven, seven brothers, yeah, trying to get him into this ridiculous position. Human nature hasn't changed much, has it? Human nature hasn't changed much, has it changed much, has it changed much, has it changed much, has it changed much, has it changed much, has it changed much, has it changed much, has it changed It changed much, has it changed much, has it changed much, has it changed much, has it changed changed much, has it changed much, has it changed much, has it changed much, has it changed much, has it changed much, has it changed much, has it changed much, has it changed much, has it changed much, has it changed much, has it changed much, has it changed much, has it changed much, and has it changed much, has it changed much, has it changed much, has it changed much, and has it changed much, has it changed much, has it changed much, You know, they just say, well, they kind of really admit the scripture is contradictory, right? And that's not good. And this last clause is more true, he says, very hard, Thomas is clear, which also Jerome places in his commentary, I guess, on Matthew, right? And Eusebius in Caesarea, in the Ecclesiastical history, asserts to be, what, handed down from the... Yeah, what is that, a writer of history, historiographer? Julius Africanus is what it says. Julius Africanus. I mentioned how Thomas' explanation of the word history, which I think comes, has the idea in Greek of a big investigation, right? But Aristotle calls the Dianima there, he calls it Historia Dianima, right? And Thomas says, why does he call it that? Well, he's not taking up all the questions we could ask about the soul, right? So there's something incomplete about his consideration of the, what, soul, right? So if you either tweet us on the soul in the Summa, or look at the disputed questions on the soul, you'll see things that Aristotle didn't explicitly take up in the Dianima, right? And so Thomas says he calls it Historia, because it's the nature of Historia to be incomplete. I think that fits very well what we call history today, right? And most historians just say that, right? I really want historians to say, you know, history is always more complicated than we think. And it is when you go into these things, right? You know, you get some barbersome of these famous men you've read about, you know, and heard about, and you realize how things are a little more complicated than you thought. Why didn't they do this? Why didn't they do that? And you try to put yourself back where they were doing and what they faced, and you realize how complicated it was. History is a baguette. Well, I had a definition of supposed to be Napoleon. I don't know what it is, though, you know. Isn't it agreed upon lies or something? Something like, yeah, statistics or something, yeah. Yeah, yeah. It's what? History is one game thing. Yeah, yeah. That's a very good definition of it. Especially the guy that came up with the assembly line. One damn thing. Yeah, that's right. Well, you know, I saw this kind of debate there between Coakley and... Oh, yeah. And Coakley made kind of a stupid statement there that there's no al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. So everybody's jumping at her for saying this kind of stupid thing, you know, but I hear them saying, well, she said there's no Taliban in Afghanistan. Well, that's all she said. No, no. And there's no terrorists. When we say that, she said there's no al-Qaeda, you know, which is bad enough. But, I mean, so they keep on, you know, changing the story just in a few days, it's been on the air. A couple days. She's running for Senator. We get to run against this guy that we get the ads for today. She's... She's a duck. She thinks Kennedy looked like he was rational. She's got all these, you know, money coming into her, you know, and she's running all these nasty ads against him now. I hope they don't backfire, but... For they say that Mathon and Melchi, right, in diverse times, what could happen to me, of one and the same wife, by the name of Estan, procreated individual sons, right? And because Mathon, who descended through Solomon, took the wife first, right, and left, what? One son. One son, by the name of Jacob, who died, after whose obituary. Because the law prevented the, what? Widow? Did not prevent. Oh, did not prevent, yeah. The widow for marrying another man. To Melchi, who descended from the genus of Nathan, who was from, since he was from the same tribe, right? But not from the same, what? Family. Yeah. Took the relic of Nathan. Yeah, the one left by Nathan, right? Took his wife, right? Took his relic. From which also he received a son for the name of Heli, right? And thus from a diverse genus of fathers, Jacob and Heli were... Brothers of different mothers. That's Uderan. Uderan brothers. Uderan brothers, the same mother that was his father. Same mother, yeah. Of whom one, that is Jacob, whose brother was... Yeah. Dying without, what? Free offspring. From the mandate of the law, taking wife, generated Joseph, right? By nature of the genus, his own, what? Son. According to the precept of the law, he was made the son of Heli. That makes sense, doesn't it? In other words, you would raise up, that's what the law said, you would raise up to your brother's memory, right? So the man that I generate from my brother's widow, right? It's named him. Yeah. It could be in a sense called the son of my brother, right? I think that's how the law viewed it, is that it wasn't your son, it would be your brother. It would be named by your brother. Yeah, yeah. So it might be said to be both then, right? For different reasons, right? And therefore, Matthew says that Jacob generated Joseph, but Luke, who described the, what? Legal generation. And although Damascene says that the Blessed Virgin Mary, right, attained Joseph according to that origin by which his father was called Heli, right? Because he says that he was descended from, what? Okay. Nevertheless, it should be believed that also he took his origin from Solomon in some way, right? To those fathers whom Matthew enumerates, who seems to narrate the flesh regeneration of Christ, right? Especially since Ambrose says that Christ descended from the seed of Joconius. I don't know if that'll keep you awake at night going over this text, or it'll put you to sleep, you know, trying to think about it. It'll keep you awake. I know when the priest reads the genealogy there, you know, in Matthew, you know, from the pulpit, you know, and I don't know what the, we're one of these kind of popular, helps to read in the Bible there, you know, saying, you know, it's not you just to skip over this, you know. He'll say, oh, I didn't read through the whole list. I remember reading years ago the book of Joshua and Chronicles and all those books, full of genealogy, you see. And Joshua, especially, I seem to remember because he talks about the division of the land. And he says, and the so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, he got this piece of land over here that's by this river, by this rock over here, he goes so many feet this way, then he goes over to the tree that's over there and goes back that way and that's the piece he got. You got to have a photographic memory to get these things right and to repeat them, you know. Some people have a photographic memory. They said that was, what's his name, Emmanuel Kant had something that had a photographic memory. When he was a boy, he went to listen to some preacher. He was just a little boy and after he was over, he was a kid. It was like a two-hour-hound sermon. It's like Mozart went in and heard that thing and wrote it down, you know, that he wouldn't.