Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2016 December 23

= December 23 =

costume likings
I've been liking the two different current costumes of Wonder Girl (Donna Troy). One is shimmery black, the other is red with stars. Are there any more pictures of them on the internet?2604:2000:7113:9D00:B81E:C008:E611:FADF (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "Any more"? That would suggest we knew just how many you have viewed already. Have you tried a simple internet search by typing in "Wonder Girl Donna Troy" + "Red" - or - "Black"? This might be your best option. Good luck. Maineartists (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If using Google to search, be sure to click on "Images" to just see pics. StuRat (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I tried that, but they showed very little of what I like. I'm looking for both full-length unitard costumes.2604:2000:7113:9D00:B81E:C008:E611:FADF (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I find plenty of full-length unitards when I use the two search terms Maine listed above:


 * "Wonder Girl Donna Troy" "Red"


 * "Wonder Girl Donna Troy" "Black"


 * StuRat (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Great! But do they show the boots, belts, gauntlets and all that?2604:2000:7113:9D00:B81E:C008:E611:FADF (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure, why don't you try it ? Here are some figurines I found, in both colors, in case you are a collector: .  StuRat (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The figurines look nice. But I was actually trying to find pictures of women modeling both costumes. Thank you anyway.142.255.69.73 (talk) 10:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The word for that is cosplay. Just add that to the search string. Matt Deres (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I did that, and the models were facing one side or another. But thank you anyway. Are there any images where the models are facing the camera?2604:2000:7113:9D00:B81E:C008:E611:FADF (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Charles Schulz and Quoting Linus
In our Sunday comics dated Dec. 17-18, 2016 Classic Peanuts (Peanuts 1969 Worldwide LLC) has Linus starting his story from the Bible, "The Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ...). In the 7th picture, Linus says "... And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary...."  I do not believe that that Joseph was Mary's husband.  He was actually the 10th son of Jacob (the first son of Jacob and Rachel, followed by Benjamin.  They were very old when they were blessed to had these two boys).  According to the Old Testament, Jacob's son, Joseph became one of the twelve tribes of the Children of Israel. I do not recollect  that Joseph ever became the husband of Mary, there are many years in between, like thousands in between their births. Please let me know what you think. Thank you. Alice Engel 24.148.118.59 (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There is more than one woman named Mary in the Bible. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you asking if the comic quoted the Bible correctly? The verse is the very first of Matthew, which says in the King James Version:
 * Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
 * And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
 * [11 verses of begats omitted]
 * And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
 * And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom is born Jesus, who is called Christ.
 * So it's clear that the Mary mentioned in the last verse is the mother of Jesus, but the Jacob mentioned in that verse is a different person from the Jacob mentioned in the first verse. CodeTalker (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It may well be that the comic strip deliberately shortened the list from Matthew's gospel by conflating two people with the same names, in order to avoid a very long list of fairly unimportant names which would not work well in a comic strip. However, the father of the Joseph who was married to Mary, the mother of Jesus, is given as Jacob in Matthew's gospel - though in Luke's gospel he is named as Heli. Both Jacob and Joseph were, and still are, very common Jewish names. Wymspen (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This is the strip. The joke is actually that Linus recites the whole tedious genealogy (though not all of it is written out in the strip). -- BenRG (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And never mind that Joseph was not Jesus' father. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Although the purpose of those verses is to establish the genealogy of Jesus.--Shantavira|feed me 07:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They establish the genealogy of Joseph, not of Jesus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * True, but if Joseph legally adopted Jesus, as is generally assumed though not explicitly described in the New Testament, consequences of that genealogy (such as being descended from a royal line) would then legally apply to Jesus also. The other and differing genealogy given in the NT has been posited as that of Mary, which would give Jesus a parallel genealogy also descended from a royal (and/or priestly) line. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.136.117 (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you figure? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your question is unclear. In general, what I proffer on this subject has been gleaned from 45 years of reading books dealing with various aspects of it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.85.142 (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So you have sources? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On a topic I've taken interest in for several decades, I often find I can no longer either remember a specific source for something I remember reading, or can no longer locate or get access to the relevant book.
 * In this instance however, I can point you to Chapter 2, A Son of David? in The Jesus Dynasty by James D. Tabor (Simon & Schuster 2006 (US), Harper Element 2006 (UK)).
 * In comparing the two different New Testament genealogies given for Jesus in Maatthew and Luke respectively, Tabor points out that Matthew's includes references to four women (not usually considered relevant in Jewish genealogies of the period), all of them disreputable foreigners and the fourth being Uriah's wife (Bathsheba) with whom King David had an adulterous affair resulting in Solomon. He further points out that Matthew's genealogy ends with "Jacob fathered Joseph, the husband of Mary, from her was fathered Jesus called Christ . . . ." [Not] "Jacob fathered Joseph, Joseph fathered Jesus . . . ."
 * He goes on to remark: "Joseph was of this same line [from King David via King Jechoniah], but as the legal father of Jesus, rather than the biological [Tabor's italics] father, Joseph's ancestry did not disqualify Jesus' potential claim to the throne if Jesus could claim descent from David through another branch of the Davidic lineage." Tabor then details and discusses Luke's genealogy and explains why [he thinks] this is almost certainly Mary's lineage, and the significance of the large proportion of characteristically Levite names it contains. It is of course widely accepted that John the Baptiser was (a) Jesus' cousin and (b) of the Levite line – this is relevant to Tabor's main theme.
 * There is of course a great deal of other material, evidence and argument in Tabor's book (to whose main thesis these points are only peripheral), and much of this is congruent with other books by other unconnected authors I've read over the years, but as all of this is somewhat off topic to the OP's query, I won't harp on. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)