640 replies to this topic

[Arbitran]

Jor-el, on 12 April 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

No, One is of Mary, but Mary could not be added to the geneology, thus Joseph was put in her place., he was a son of Heli, but it was a "son in law".

Care to prove this somehow?

[Mr Walker]

Arbitran, on 12 April 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

Strange, I was always under the impression that "No man hath seen God at any time"...

Which god would that be?   Biblically, god appeared to a number of people. However it is a belief that no one has seen, and perhaps cannot see, the "true" or natural form of god. But god can appear as anything from a burnibg bush to a human being .And those manifestations of god, man can see.

Woops. tiggs beat me to it. That should teach me to respond to posts in order, without reading the intervening ones, but it probably wont.

Edited by Mr Walker, 13 April 2012 - 12:03 AM.

[Jor-el]

Arbitran, on 12 April 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

Care to prove this somehow?

Quite simple what we have here is what is called "an authors interjection"...

The ESV translation gives it this way, notice the commas and brackets...

Luke 3:23

23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat...

The part in blue is the interjection, it is not an actual part of the geneology. The geneolgy itself moves from Jesus directly to Heli. The only possible reason for this would be if Mary could not be included (since females were not included in geneologies).

Now commas and brackets are not part of the original text, thus when read through, it gives the impression that Joseph is part of the geneology.

We could also read it as I stated, that Joseph, was a son, but, as a "son in law", thus taking Marys' place within the geneology. Both work quite well.

Edited by Jor-el, 13 April 2012 - 12:20 AM.

[Arbitran]

Jor-el, on 13 April 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

Quite simple what we have here is what is called "an authors interjection"...

The ESV translation gives it this way, notice the commas and brackets...

Luke 3:23

23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat...

The part in blue is the interjection, it is not an actual part of the geneology. The geneolgy itself moves from Jesus directly to Heli. The only possible reason for this would be if Mary could not be included (since females were not included in geneologies).

Your point? All I've seen here is that it seems quite evident that the genealogies still contradict each other.

[Jor-el]

Arbitran, on 13 April 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

Your point? All I've seen here is that it seems quite evident that the genealogies still contradict each other.

Naturally, given that people are reading the text as if the interjection is part of the geneology...

[Arbitran]

Jor-el, on 13 April 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

Naturally, given that people are reading the text as if the interjection is part of the geneology...

Given that the interjection is there, how is it unreasonable to think that the author here was noting something of importance? Namely, it seems clear that this was intended to be Joseph's genealogy--it just happens to contradict the other one. This is not surprising, as the authors of the gospels wouldn't have known each other or collaborated.

[Jor-el]

Arbitran, on 13 April 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

Given that the interjection is there, how is it unreasonable to think that the author here was noting something of importance? Namely, it seems clear that this was intended to be Joseph's genealogy--it just happens to contradict the other one. This is not surprising, as the authors of the gospels wouldn't have known each other or collaborated.

I would disagree with you since the interjection plainly is referring to peoples supposition that Joseph was Jesus father. Jesus being the central subject of the geneology after all.

At most, the mention of Joseph is an addendum, that the author wanted people to be aware of, it was never meant to be interpreted the weay it has been, that this is a second geneology of Joseph. Biblically it is demonstrated that the use of the term "son", does not have to mean a literal biological son, it can even mean grandson or even great grandson and it can mean "son in law" if the author didn't want to add Mary.

We have another example of just such an occurence again in the geneology of Luke. Shealtiel, is the son of Neri or Jeconiah?

1 Chronicles 3:17 says Jeconiah, so who was Neri?

Shealtiel was also the "son in law" of Neri, but again it was necessary to put his name as a "son" because they could not add a womans name. This is self evident since the geneologies converge twice.

We know for a fact that the geneologies are not complete, one is twice as long as the other, but there are reasons for that, which depended on the purpose of the specific geneolgy and its intended audience.

Matthew divides Jesus' genealogy into three blocks of 14 names each for a total of 42 names.

• There are 14 generations from Abraham to David.
  
• There are 14 generations from David until the exile to Babylon.
  
• There are 14 generations from the exile to Babylon until the birth of Christ.

He presents Jesus' genealogy in accordance with the sacred number seven.

The list is a selective "pedigree" of Jesus. He leaves out whole generations.

The number "14" equals the numerical value of David's name in Hebrew (4+6+4, dwd).
This is similar to the number 666 for Nero, which appears in Revelation.

Luke also presents the genealogy in multiples of seven, but not so obviously as Matthew. Luke's genealogy totals 77 names.

• There are 21 generations from Adam to Abraham.
  
• There are 14 generations from Abraham to David.
  
• There are 21 names from David until the exile.
  
• There are 21 names from the exile to Joseph.

The geneologies are manipulated artifacts, even though they contain the historical ancestors of Jesus. Each was presented with a purpose, one to trace his actual bloodline, the other to trace his Davidic and therefore messianic bloodline.

Edited by Jor-el, 13 April 2012 - 01:26 AM.

[Arbitran]

Jor-el, on 13 April 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

I would disagree with you since the interjection plainly is referring to peoples supposition that Joseph was Jesus father. Jesus being the central subject of the geneology after all.

At most, the mention of Joseph is an addendum, that the author wanted people to be aware of, it was never meant to be interpreted the weay it has been, that this is a second geneology of Joseph. Biblically it is demonstrated that the use of the term "son", does not have to mean a literal biological son, it can even mean grandson or even great grandson and it can mean "son in law" if the author didn't want to add Mary.

We have another example of just such an occurence again in the geneology of Luke. Shealtiel, is the son of Neri or Jeconiah?

1 Chronicles 3:17 says Jeconiah, so who was Neri?

Shealtiel was also the "son in law" of Neri, but again it was necessary to put his name as a "son" because they could not add a womans name. This is self evident since the geneologies converge twice.

We know for a fact that the geneologies are not complete, one is twice as long as the other, but there are reasons for that, which depended on the purpose of the specific geneolgy and its intended audience.

Matthew divides Jesus' genealogy into three blocks of 14 names each for a total of 42 names.

• There are 14 generations from Abraham to David.
  
• There are 14 generations from David until the exile to Babylon.
  
• There are 14 generations from the exile to Babylon until the birth of Christ.

He presents Jesus' genealogy in accordance with the sacred number seven.

The list is a selective "pedigree" of Jesus. He leaves out whole generations.

The number "14" equals the numerical value of David's name in Hebrew (4+6+4, dwd).
This is similar to the number 666 for Nero, which appears in Revelation.

Luke also presents the genealogy in multiples of seven, but not so obviously as Matthew. Luke's genealogy totals 77 names.

• There are 21 generations from Adam to Abraham.
  
• There are 14 generations from Abraham to David.
  
• There are 21 names from David until the exile.
  
• There are 21 names from the exile to Joseph.

The geneologies are manipulated artifacts, even though they contain the historical ancestors of Jesus. Each was presented with a purpose, one to trace his actual bloodline, the other to trace his Davidic and therefore messianic bloodline.

Again, this all seems a bit unnecessary. You haven't  proved anything. You haven't even succeeded in demonstrating that one genealogy was Joseph's, and the other Mary's. There is no evidence whatsoever that Mary was ever intended to play a part in either genealogy. It is, on the other hand, quite clear that both were intended to show a genealogy from Joseph--there is not a "first" and "second" genealogy: neither author knew of the other. Both author was likely under the impression that they were the first to write out the genealogy of Jesus: the simply disagree, because they are both incorrect. There is no historical evidence to indicate that either genealogy is even remotely valid: we have no way of knowing whether or not Joseph, and thus Jesus, was actually related to any of the people listed.

[Paranoid Android]

Ben Masada, on 12 April 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

You state above: "THERE IS NO CONTEXTUAL EVIDENCE IN THE BIBLE TO CORROBORATE THAT JESUS WAS CRUCIFIED ON FRIDAY." Well, I'll take you on that one. Let me ask you a question. What do you call the first day of the week? Did I hear SUNDAY? I didn't hear you! Louder, please! S U N D A Y!!! Good. Sunday is the first day of the week. Now, would you please read with me what is written in Matthew 28:1? "After that Shabbat, as the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, (Sunday) was dawning..." If you believe in the gospel of Matthew, can you deny that this is a contextual evidence that Jesus was crucified on that Friday and laid in the tomb just before that shabbat? I believe there is no other option.
Ben

First, no need to be so condescending in your tone.  You're only making yourself look bad.  

That said, I am not disagreeing that Jesus rose on Sunday, the first day of the week.  Nor am I disagreeing that this was the day after the Sabbath.  Saturday is the Sabbath.  Now, my point - At this time of year, there is another Sabbath.  Passover is considered a high Sabbath by the Jews, unless you care to correct me on that.  Hence Jesus could easily have been crucified the day before Passover (Sabbath) on the Wednesday afternoon, and then rose again the day after a totally different Sabbath (regular Saturday), on the first day of the week.  

~ PA

Edited by Paranoid Android, 13 April 2012 - 08:32 AM.

[Paranoid Android]

Ben Masada, on 12 April 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

Paul was a Hellenistic Jew by birth; the son of well-to-do Hellenistic parents. A Hellenistic Jew would never be accepted as a Pharisee. Therefore, he lied when he said he was a Pharisee. Jesus yes, he was of the line of the Pharises. He was even acknowledged as a Rabbi by the Pharisees. (John 3:1,2) When he, Paul, decided to found his Hellenistic religion, which became known as Christianity, he ceased being Jewish. (Acts 11:26) This is not being bias but commonsense.
Ben

You may continue to maintain this belief in the face of evidence, but Saul of Tarsus was a Pharisee, originally a persecutor of the early Christian movement, and eventually converted to Christianity and changed his name to Paul.  That's the way it is, but I understand why you would think he was a Hellenistic Jew instead

~ PA

[Jor-el]

Arbitran, on 13 April 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

Again, this all seems a bit unnecessary. You haven't  proved anything. You haven't even succeeded in demonstrating that one genealogy was Joseph's, and the other Mary's. There is no evidence whatsoever that Mary was ever intended to play a part in either genealogy. It is, on the other hand, quite clear that both were intended to show a genealogy from Joseph--there is not a "first" and "second" genealogy: neither author knew of the other. Both author was likely under the impression that they were the first to write out the genealogy of Jesus: the simply disagree, because they are both incorrect. There is no historical evidence to indicate that either genealogy is even remotely valid: we have no way of knowing whether or not Joseph, and thus Jesus, was actually related to any of the people listed.

Basically, you are free to believe that the two geneologies are in conflict, if that is what you prefer, but just so you know, there are other equally valid options...

Unnecessary?, not in the least, It would be unnecessary, if the correct reading were applied today as it was when it was written. The fact that we have ample precedent throughout the bible for what I have said, shows this to be true. You yourself may not be able to accept it, I see no reason to reject it.

You say that the authors did not know of each other?

I can accept that, but I doubt it.

Scholars postulate the existence of a Q Source, from which Luke and Matthew took their information.

They also postulate that all 3 Gospels could have had a common source as well, which has since been lost.. There are in fact quite a number of theories, all of which could simply be avoided if things were taken at face value, as is. In that case, each author not only knew of the other (they were contemporaries after all), but drew from the same well of information, but each author intentionally wrote a geneology, that was specific for thier target audience.

Matthew wrote with the Jewish church in mind, it is the perspective of the Messianic Jew, the Jew who has recognized the Messiah. His geneology, therefore shows that Jesus is the Messiah, his bloodline is that of the tribe of Judah and he is the foretold son of David. The geneology presented, demonstrates this clearly, sending the message it was intended to do.. It also happens to be Josephs actual geneology, albeit incomplete, purposefully so, there are a whole 14 generations missing from the geneology.

Luke on the other hand is complete, in his generations, it can only be an actual bloodline, and thus it could only have been Mary's. And Luke is known for having tried to be as factual as complete as possible, something the others ignored. There is more historical accuracy than in any of the other Gospels, due to Lukes detailed accounts. That many of the names are actually unknown in the biblical record, demonstrate that this is not a fabrication, but an actual record. Luke is establishing to his target audience, the gentiles and the gentile church, a human being, not a demi-god of some kind, albeit one born in miraculous circumstances. Because the demi-god, is what they expect of a woman who gave birth to a child fathered by a god.

Lukes geneology could only be Marys', for the simple reason that she is his only direct biological ancestor, and this is an actual biological geneology. No other view has this much wheight behind it.

[Ben Masada]

Beckys_Mom, on 12 April 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

Yea and we can RELY on a mere  dream  lol....Ben....stop right there...  Taking ones word for it is not something I do easy.. you do...I see that.. But come on a dream??   Oh  it was a dream then it MUST be true ?

Sigh...  I have heard it all now Dreams   are proof  lol

Who ever said here that what comes on a dream is proof of any thing? A dream to prove any thing, it must be interpreted metaphorically. Nothing can
be proved literally. Maybe, to you, what happens in a dream must be true. Not to me.
Ben

[Ben Masada]

Jor-el, on 12 April 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

Bollywocks, Ben... and I'm being kind here...

How interesting, metaphorical language saves the Jewish interpretation of the Tanach, the literal rendering however confirms the christian viewpoint without justifying any of it... I wonder who could be wrong here.

Numbers 12:6 says no such thing... unless you are purposefully trying to obfuscate the obvious... God was speaking directly to Aaron and Miriam for speaking badly of Moses, they weren't having a dream or a vision. They were all three standing before God who was within the pillar of cloud. At this very moment, neither Aaron nor Miriam were having a vision of any kind... the whole camp of Israel could see the pillar. All three could hear God who was right in front of them.

And yet you claim that He only appeared to Moses who was special... so Abraham wasn't even more special?, how about Jacob, for whom the entire nation is named.. Israel? These weren't special to God?

You are so taking things out of context that it is blatantly obvious to everyone who reads this. I understand why you are doing it, it just doesn't make you right.

You are right on this one. The literal interpretation confirms the Christian viewpoint. That's why the Christian concept of God is so anthropomorphistic. Read Isaiah 46:5. "Whom would you compare Me with, as an equal, or match Me against, as though we were alike?" That's why God, for Christians, has form and is born on earth as a man. At least, take from Jesus who said that God is Spirit. A spirit is incorporeal. (John 4:24)

Here is what Numbers 12:6 says: "Should there be a prophet among you, in visions will I reveal myself to him. In dreams will I speak to him." I don't know what kind of Bible translation you have to say that's not what is written in Numbers 12:6. And I never said that God appeared only to Moses. He never appeared to any one whosoever. Neither to Moses nor to Abraham, and not to Jesus either. It was all in their dream/visions.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 18 April 2012 - 08:06 PM.

[Beckys_Mom]

Ben Masada, on 18 April 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

Who ever said here that what comes on a dream is proof of any thing? A dream to prove any thing, it must be interpreted metaphorically. Nothing can
be proved literally. Maybe, to you, what happens in a dream must be true. Not to me.

Quote

                 But I do agree with you that Moses neversaw anything of God, but in dreams and visions. As you know, any thing is possible to see in a dream.                   

And yet Moses  is believed  by many....That's all I was saying.   Nothing more to be added   UNLESS you wish to derail   If so I am not interested..

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 18 April 2012 - 08:11 PM.

[Ben Masada]

Arbitran, on 12 April 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

Strange, I was always under the impression that "No man hath seen God at any time"...

And you are right. Keep on the good impression. Indeed, no man hath ever seen God at any time of his life. God is Spirit, and incorporeal at that.
(John 4:24)
Ben