Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Luke and Matthews geneologies
judge
Member (Idle past 6443 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 32 of 168 (25084)
11-30-2002 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by John
11-29-2002 9:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by judge:
Can you define what would be a "valid messainic bloodline"? I believe I have supplied this but perhaps you are defining it differently.
The prophecies are not only that the messiah be of David's line, but of David's line via his son Solomon.
Luke's bloodline, typically argued to be that of Mary rather than Joseph, traces back to David via Nathan not Solomon. II Samuel 7:12-13. So we strike that one. Note: It really doesn't matter if it is Joseph's line or Mary's.
Matthew give us a lineage that runs through a character named King Jeconiah. What's wrong with the King you ask? Well, God cursed him for one.
Jeremiah 22:30 "Write this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days. For no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David and ruling anymore in Judah."

Thanks John. I am aware that Lukes bloodline is "typically argued" to be that of Mary, but the whole point of my first post here is that Matthew gives the bloodline of Mary. So I think your argument is a GOOD one if I were arguing for Luke givig Mary's bloodline, but I am not doing this :-)
As for the curse on Jeconiah, this curse was clearly lifted! The following site gives numerous sources (non Christian) supporting this.
There is too much to cut and paste, but it occurs in the second half of the link (about two thirds of the way through).
All the best.
http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/7.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by John, posted 11-29-2002 9:36 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by John, posted 11-30-2002 8:39 PM judge has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 168 (25091)
11-30-2002 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by judge
11-30-2002 6:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by judge:
I am aware that Lukes bloodline is "typically argued" to be that of Mary, but the whole point of my first post here is that Matthew gives the bloodline of Mary.
Apologists choose Luke's genealogy as Mary's because there is an (percieved) exploitable word in Luke's text. I am not aware of anything similar in Matthew. The first question then is why do you believe that Matthew gives the genealogy through Mary? Without some means of counteracting what the Bible plainly states, the argument fails right here.
quote:
So I think your argument is a GOOD one if I were arguing for Luke givig Mary's bloodline, but I am not doing this :-)
I don't see that it matters. I have argued that both lines are invalid. Whose line is actually given is irrelevant.
quote:
As for the curse on Jeconiah, this curse was clearly lifted!
ummm.... no.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.teshuvah.com/articles/Does_Yeshua_qualify_as_the_Messiah.htm
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.branchofdavid.org/articles/either2.html
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/antimissionary/genealogy.html
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.teshuvah.com/articles/Does_Yeshua_qualify_as_the_Messiah.htm
quote:
The following site gives numerous sources (non Christian) supporting this.
The site you posted draws heavily upon extra biblical sources from Jewish tradition. This will cause some significant theological problems, which occured to me as I read it. One of the links I give confirms this and outlines some problems, so I won't repeat.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by judge, posted 11-30-2002 6:13 PM judge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by judge, posted 11-30-2002 10:26 PM John has replied

  
judge
Member (Idle past 6443 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 34 of 168 (25103)
11-30-2002 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by John
11-30-2002 8:39 PM


John:
Apologists choose Luke's genealogy as Mary's because there is an (percieved) exploitable word in Luke's text. I am not aware of anything similar in Matthew. The first question then is why do you believe that Matthew gives the genealogy through Mary? Without some means of counteracting what the Bible plainly states, the argument fails right here.
Judge:
John I can only suggest that you read my opening post again, as I dealt with this there, but it may somehow have escaped yourr attention.
All the best

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by John, posted 11-30-2002 8:39 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by John, posted 11-30-2002 11:10 PM judge has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 168 (25106)
11-30-2002 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by judge
11-30-2002 10:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by judge:
John I can only suggest that you read my opening post again, as I dealt with this there, but it may somehow have escaped yourr attention.

Oh yes. I remember that now.
The argument rests upon the fact that the NT was originally written in aramaic. I can find no conclusive evidence for this, despite your first post.
Secondly, the argument depends upon some questionable linguistic maneuvers. It isn't convincing. I'd like to see some harder evidence.
And...
The real issue, from my point a view, is that niether lineage is valid.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by judge, posted 11-30-2002 10:26 PM judge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by judge, posted 12-01-2002 3:11 AM John has replied

  
judge
Member (Idle past 6443 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 36 of 168 (25110)
12-01-2002 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by John
11-30-2002 11:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by judge:
John I can only suggest that you read my opening post again, as I dealt with this there, but it may somehow have escaped yourr attention.

Oh yes. I remember that now.
The argument rests upon the fact that the NT was originally written in aramaic. I can find no conclusive evidence for this, despite your first post.
Secondly, the argument depends upon some questionable linguistic maneuvers. It isn't convincing. I'd like to see some harder evidence.
And...
The real issue, from my point a view, is that niether lineage is valid.

Thanks again John. The evidence for the NT being written in Aramaic has not been thouroughly investigated by western schollars. In fact this is an enormous understatement :-), it barely been examined at all.
Those who investigate it may be surprised just how good it is ;-).
As f or the linguistics being questionable, well what isn't questioable. But i will point out that the word "gowra" is used throughout the Aramaic Matthew in the sense of "Father", although I only provided one example.
All the best.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by John, posted 11-30-2002 11:10 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by John, posted 12-01-2002 12:55 PM judge has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 168 (25141)
12-01-2002 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by judge
12-01-2002 3:11 AM


quote:
Originally posted by judge:
Those who investigate it may be surprised just how good it is ;-).
Sure, they may be surprised, but that is hardly grounds for taking it as a given.
And I think the evidence against is pretty conclusive, anyway. And that makes any word-play based of the aramaic a moot point.
Christianseparatist.org
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by judge, posted 12-01-2002 3:11 AM judge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by judge, posted 12-01-2002 4:06 PM John has replied

  
judge
Member (Idle past 6443 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 38 of 168 (25154)
12-01-2002 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by John
12-01-2002 12:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by judge:
Those who investigate it may be surprised just how good it is ;-).
Sure, they may be surprised, but that is hardly grounds for taking it as a given.
And I think the evidence against is pretty conclusive, anyway. And that makes any word-play based of the aramaic a moot point.
Christianseparatist.org

Hi John, just what exactly do you find so conclusive about the "christian seperatist" analysis.
Do you think perhaps it would be better to get the views of someone who understood aramaic rather than the "christian seperatists"?
All the best

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by John, posted 12-01-2002 12:55 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by John, posted 12-01-2002 6:23 PM judge has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 168 (25164)
12-01-2002 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by judge
12-01-2002 4:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by judge:
Hi John, just what exactly do you find so conclusive about the "christian seperatist" analysis.
Do you think perhaps it would be better to get the views of someone who understood aramaic rather than the "christian seperatists"?

Having some religious tolerance issues there judge? That post sure smells like distaste.
But seriously, folks, that would be a ad hominem directed toward the author of the article. Granted, the man appears to be a white-supremist type, but the article looks to be a competent account. It tracks pretty well with what I've found elsewhere. That's right. I didn't stop looking when I found Mr. Herrel's site. His is a nicely written article though. I have in fact been looking into this for a week or so, off and on, because of this very thread. What I've found is that there is a lot going for the Greek-originals hypothesis and not much going for the aramaic-originals hypothesis.
1)The Peshitta is written is Syriac. Syriac is not the Aramaic of the 1st century. Syriac didn't pop up until the third or fourth century.
2)The Peshitta wasn't produced until 400 something. It can't therefore be the original.
3)A major language of the area at the time of Christ was Greek, and had been for some 300 years. (Christ apparently spoke aramaic, but then we are talking about the original language of the NT, not the language Christ spoke.)
No webpage found at provided URL: http://answering-islam.org/Bible/nt-languages.html
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/queball23/Jesusspoke.html
"One of the most surprising facts about these funerary inscriptions is that most of them are IN GREEK -- approximately 70 percent; about 12 percent are in Latin; and only 18 percent are in Hebrew or Aramaic.
"These figures are even more instructive if we break them down between Palestine and the Diaspora. Naturally in Palestine we would expect more Hebrew and Aramaic and less Greek. This is true, but not to any great extent. Even in Palestine approximately TWO-THIRDS of these inscriptions are in GREEK.
"APPARENTLY FOR A GREAT PART OF THE JEWISH POPULATION THE DAILY LANGUAGE WAS GREEK, EVEN IN PALESTINE. This is impressive testimony to the impact of Hellenistic culture on Jews in their mother country, to say nothing of the Diaspora.
"In Jerusalem itself about 40 PERCENT of the Jewish inscriptions from the first century period (before 70 C.E.) ARE IN GREEK. We may assume that most Jewish Jerusalemites who saw the inscriptions in situ were able to read them" ("Jewish Funerary Inscriptions -- Most Are in Greek," Pieter W. Van Der Horst, BAR, Sept.-Oct.1992, p.48).
4)The NT quotes the Greek septuagint, thus establishing that the authors read Greek.
5) Mark 5:41 quotes Jesus speaking in aramaic and TRANSLATES those words into GREEK. This makes no sense if the text was written in aramaic. Why translate the aramaic to greek if your readers are already reading aramaic? -- my fav
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by judge, posted 12-01-2002 4:06 PM judge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by judge, posted 12-01-2002 11:07 PM John has replied

  
judge
Member (Idle past 6443 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 40 of 168 (25198)
12-01-2002 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by John
12-01-2002 6:23 PM


Hello again John! :-)
Originally posted by judge:
Hi John, just what exactly do you find so conclusive about the "christian seperatist" analysis.
Do you think perhaps it would be better to get the views of someone who understood aramaic rather than the "christian seperatists"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John:
Having some religious tolerance issues there judge? That post sure smells like distaste.
Judge:
No John, my point is that the author of the article does not know what he is talking about, as I will demonstrate further down. :-).
I did go to that site some time ago and some of his other stuff is probably to the point (not his white supremacist rubbish though)
John:
But seriously, folks, that would be a ad hominem directed toward the author of the article. Granted, the man appears to be a white-supremist type, but the article looks to be a competent account. It tracks pretty well with what I've found elsewhere. That's right. I didn't stop looking when I found Mr. Herrel's site. His is a nicely written article though. I have in fact been looking into this for a week or so, off and on, because of this very thread. What I've found is that there is a lot going for the Greek-originals hypothesis and not much going for the aramaic-originals hypothesis.
Judge:
Hmm..perhaps you woulfd be able to give ONE piece of evidence for a greek original then?
Judge:
1)The Peshitta is written is Syriac. Syriac is not the Aramaic of the 1st century. Syriac didn't pop up until the third or fourth century.
Judge:
Are you sure you want to stand behind this statement John?
Inscriptions dating to the year 6A.D have been found using the estrangelo script (which the Peshitta is written in). Syriac is a form of Aramaic!!
This is the language of the assyrian empire.
Listen to what Schollar william Cureton had to say..
""Generally it may be observed that the language used by our Saviour and his apostles being that ordinarily employed by the Hebrews in Palestine at the time, and called by St. Luke (Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 1), Papias, and Irenaeus, the Hebrew Dialect, is so very similar and closely allied with the Syriac of the New Testament, called the Peshitto, that the two may be considered identical, with the exception, perhaps, of some very slight dialectical peculiarities. These facts are so well known to all who have given attention to this subject, that it is not necessary for me to enter into any proof of them in this place."
there is probably a lot of conflicting stuff on the web about this :-) so I would urge you to continue looking.
The following may be agood site.
http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/syriac_language.html
John:
2)The Peshitta wasn't produced until 400 something. It can't therefore be the original.
Judge:
This is merely the opinion of some western schollars. But the peshitta is used in the liturgy of the COE which is the liturgy in the world.
Here is the COE's version of the histopry of the peshitta.
""With reference to....the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."
Mar Eshai Shimun
by Grace, Catholicos Patriarch of the East
John:
3)A major language of the area at the time of Christ was Greek, and had been for some 300 years. (Christ apparently spoke aramaic, but then we are talking about the original language of the NT, not the language Christ spoke.)
http://answering-islam.org/Bible/nt-languages.html
http://www.geocities.com/queball23/Jesusspoke.html
"One of the most surprising facts about these funerary inscriptions is that most of them are IN GREEK -- approximately 70 percent; about 12 percent are in Latin; and only 18 percent are in Hebrew or Aramaic.
"These figures are even more instructive if we break them down between Palestine and the Diaspora. Naturally in Palestine we would expect more Hebrew and Aramaic and less Greek. This is true, but not to any great extent. Even in Palestine approximately TWO-THIRDS of these inscriptions are in GREEK.
"APPARENTLY FOR A GREAT PART OF THE JEWISH POPULATION THE DAILY LANGUAGE WAS GREEK, EVEN IN PALESTINE. This is impressive testimony to the impact of Hellenistic culture on Jews in their mother country, to say nothing of the Diaspora.
"In Jerusalem itself about 40 PERCENT of the Jewish inscriptions from the first century period (before 70 C.E.) ARE IN GREEK. We may assume that most Jewish Jerusalemites who saw the inscriptions in situ were able to read them" ("Jewish Funerary Inscriptions -- Most Are in Greek," Pieter W. Van Der Horst, BAR, Sept.-Oct.1992, p.48).
Judge:
This is just plain wrong. Lets here what a first century jew (Josephus) had to say...."this it was that I promised to do in the beginning of this history. And I am so bold as to say, now I have so completely perfected the work I proposed to myself to do, that no other person, whether he were a Jew or foreigner, had he ever so great an inclination to it, could so accurately deliver these accounts to the Greeks as is done in these books. For those of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far exceed them in the learning belonging to Jews; I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains."
Antiquities, 20.11.2:
John:
4)The NT quotes the Greek septuagint, thus establishing that the authors read Greek.
Judge:
The NT DOES NOT quote the LXX! It merely agrees wjth the LXX over the massoretic text the majority of times.
One proof of this is Ephesians 4;8 where the quotation agrees neither with the LXX or the massoretic BUT does agree with an Aramaic targum.
John:
5) Mark 5:41 quotes Jesus speaking in aramaic and TRANSLATES those words into GREEK. This makes no sense if the text was written in aramaic. Why translate the aramaic to greek if your readers are already reading aramaic? -- my fav
Judge:
This appears in the greek because the greek is a translation!!!
It does not occur in the Aramaic (why would it?)
All the best..........judge

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by John, posted 12-01-2002 6:23 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by John, posted 12-02-2002 12:45 AM judge has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 168 (25201)
12-02-2002 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by judge
12-01-2002 11:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by judge:
Hello again John! :-)
Howdy!
Now that is a response !!!!!!
quote:
Hmm..perhaps you would be able to give ONE piece of evidence for a greek original then?
You're joking? The evidence is laying around like manna from heaven. Nice posture but it means nothing.
quote:
Are you sure you want to stand behind this statement John?
Certainly, until proven wrong...
quote:
Inscriptions dating to the year 6A.D have been found using the estrangelo script (which the Peshitta is written in).
Please cite a source for those inscriptions. What I have found contradicts your statement.
The Syriac language also developed different scripts. The earliest Syriac inscriptions of the first and second centuries A.D. (all pagan) use a script similar to Palmyrene cursive writing. By the time of our earliest manuscripts (early fifth century A.D.) however, this script has taken on a more formalised character, known as Estrangelo (derived from Greek strongulos 'rounded')
ERROR 404 - PAGE NOT FOUND
I did find a reference to the 6AD date but no description of the script used on the inscription.
quote:
Syriac is a form of Aramaic!!
ummmm... yeah, no kidding. That doesn't make it the same language. Please don't play childish games with me.
quote:
Listen to what Schollar william Cureton had to say.
Fine. Cureton believed this. Cureton has also been dead for 150 years and new information may just have popped up. Got anything more recent?
Also interesting to note that you did not include, from the site you reference, that "Cureton cautiously remarked that insufficient evidence existed at that time for him to be certain, but..." Then follows the text your quoted.
quote:
This is merely the opinion of some western schollars. But the peshitta is used in the liturgy of the COE which is the liturgy in the world.
LOL... You can't be serious? They use it church and they think it is older and so it is? This is your argument? Merely the opinion of some scholars? It is the opinion of every scholar I have found. Honestly, if this is how you are going to debate, I have no need for you.
quote:
This is just plain wrong.
I give you research and data and archeology and the opinions of scholars. And you give me THIS?!?
The irony of your quote from Josephus is almost too much to bear.
Josephus, writing in Greek, explaining that he took pains to learn Greek and that free-men and servants as well spoke it while at the same time saying multiliguism was not encourages. LOL
4)The NT quotes the Greek septuagint, thus establishing that the authors read Greek.
The NT DOES NOT quote the LXX! It merely agrees wjth the LXX over the massoretic text the majority of times.
The New Testament authors show a clear preference for the Septuagint over Masoretic readings.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.earthlink.net/~rgjones3/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm
The preference for the septuagint is pretty clear.
quote:
This appears in the greek because the greek is a translation!!!
hmmm.... so the greek translators translated the whole book except for a few words? It doesn't make sense.
quote:
It does not occur in the Aramaic (why would it?)
Nor would it make sense to leave that in if the work were translated from greek into aramaic. You point proves nothing.
Everywhere I look, I find evidence for a greek original NT. The vaste majority of scholars support the theory. Please, try to do better.
All the best..........judge

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by judge, posted 12-01-2002 11:07 PM judge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by judge, posted 12-02-2002 5:13 PM John has replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 168 (25212)
12-02-2002 3:33 AM


Judge - you really are barking up a pretty poor tree here, basing an argument on an alleged Aramaic document that we have no copies of, and at best disputed evidence for. Let's stick to what we have got, eh?
All - I haven't forgotten my promise to examine this whole "Matthew's use of the OT" issue, and the Jeconiah curse issue - I actually think they are closely related. Will be up very shortly - probably before you US types are out of bed.

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Karl, posted 12-02-2002 7:46 AM Karl has not replied
 Message 50 by judge, posted 12-02-2002 5:05 PM Karl has not replied
 Message 119 by judge, posted 01-30-2003 7:11 PM Karl has not replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 168 (25227)
12-02-2002 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Karl
12-02-2002 3:33 AM


First, the inclusion of Jeconiah/Jehoiachin.
First of all, Jesus remains of David's line regardless of the position wrt this curse - it just means that the line is dispossessed.
I wonder if Matthew included this gentleman on purpose? After all, we know that he missed people out, presumably to get the religously significant 3 x 14 (7 x 2) generations. Matthew was Jewish, writing for a Jewish audience, who knew the Scriptures very well. What would the inclusion of Jeconiah have meant for them?
If your sources are right that the curse goes right through the line indefinitely, it seems to me they'd have said "hey, this means this Jesus is under God's curse!"
Wierd?
Yes - and no. The concept that Jesus was voluntarily under God's curse is actually part of the NT theology:
Galatians 3
12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
This refers back to the OT law:
Deuteronomy 21
23 you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse.
and:
2 Corinthians 5
21God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
I suggest Matthew's point was that Jeconiah is a type of mankind, estranged from God; under a curse if you like. Jesus voluntarily takes on the same state, and through the cross and resurrection, God lifts the curse, makes Jesus King, and so lifts our "curse", or our estrangement from God.
Philippians 2
...Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death--
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
Just flying a kite....
Moving on to Matthew's 'dodgy' use of OT prophecy. It seems that Matthew (and the other NT writers) are not using the OT as if it were some Hebrew Old Mother Shipton, but rather referring to Jesus' words that He was the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. In other words, the things that are recorded in the OT are forshadowings of Jesus' work and person, not foretellings. So Matthew sees a parallel between Isaiah's sign to King Ahab of Immanuel - God with us, delivering us from evil. He sees a parallel between God calling Israel out of Egypt, and in Christ, God calling humanity out of fallenness. He is well aware of what these passages originally meant, but he is showing how Jesus fulfills them, not in the sense of a prediction coming true, but rather in the sense of revealing what they mystically foreshadowed. Perhaps we are meant to imagine this is what Jesus talked about on the road to Emmaus:
Luke 24
27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
Sorry to quote Scripture, and bang on, but I felt it was necessary to give a full account of what I think Matthew is driving at.
(all Bible quotations from the NIV)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Karl, posted 12-02-2002 3:33 AM Karl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by John, posted 12-02-2002 8:56 AM Karl has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 168 (25234)
12-02-2002 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Karl
12-02-2002 7:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Karl:
I wonder if Matthew included this gentleman on purpose?
....
Yes - and no. The concept that Jesus was voluntarily under God's curse is actually part of the NT theology:

That's quite an interesting idea, Karl. But why argue that Jesus was the messiah foretold in the OT and simultaneously contradict that prophetinc tradition? It doesn't make sense.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Karl, posted 12-02-2002 7:46 AM Karl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Karl, posted 12-02-2002 9:04 AM John has replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 168 (25237)
12-02-2002 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by John
12-02-2002 8:56 AM


I don't quite see where Matthew contradicts the OT prophetic tradition. Matthew presents Jesus as being of David's line, which is all that the prophetic tradition said on the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by John, posted 12-02-2002 8:56 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by John, posted 12-02-2002 9:35 AM Karl has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 168 (25241)
12-02-2002 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Karl
12-02-2002 9:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Karl:
I don't quite see where Matthew contradicts the OT prophetic tradition. Matthew presents Jesus as being of David's line, which is all that the prophetic tradition said on the subject.
Even a cursory review of the subject will reveal that there is vastly more to the tradition than that.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://Torah.freeyellow.com/18.html
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.jfjonline.org/apol/qa/prophecy.html
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.messiahrevealed.org/index.html
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Karl, posted 12-02-2002 9:04 AM Karl has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024