Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Luke and Matthews geneologies
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

  
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

  
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

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 168 (25245)
12-02-2002 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Karl
12-02-2002 9:57 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Karl:
I was referring to the line of David aspect. Which particular part of the Messianic tradition do you think Matthew contradicts?
Matthew doesn't contradict the line of David aspect, per se. Matthew does contradict the prophetic traditions concerning the Kingship of Christ by including an ancestor whose line God cursed to never again sit on the throne of Israel. Matthew is appealing to the tradition and contradicting it in the same breath, so to speak.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Karl, posted 12-02-2002 9:57 AM Karl has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 168 (25413)
12-04-2002 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Karl
12-02-2002 10:15 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Karl:
If Matthew's implication is that through the work of Christ the curse is lifted, there is no problem. If God put the curse in place, God can remove it. And that is what I suggest he is doing.
But you are still contradicting the prophetic tradition, which contains nothing to suggest that such a lift o' curse is the be the case. In other words, you have Matthew redefining the tradition on the spot. Redefining is not the same as fulfilling. Think about it this way.
1) We are to know the Messiah because of the prophecies he fulfills. This is a safety mechanism to weed out pretenders.
2) If Matthew is doing what you suggest, then he is undercutting the prophetic tradition which is to allow us to identify the messiah.
You are reasoning in circles. "Christ was the Messiah. The curse was lifted because Christ was the messiah. We know that the curse was lifted because if it hadn't been then Christ wouldn't be the messiah, which he is. So the curse was lifted."
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 12-04-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Karl, posted 12-02-2002 10:15 AM Karl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Karl, posted 12-04-2002 10:22 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 168 (25417)
12-04-2002 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by judge
12-02-2002 5:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by judge:
1. the reference to the estrangelo inscription fron 6 a.d. can be found in the link I provided.
Curiously, there is no mention of the critical element-- the script style-- in the article you cited.
The earliest datable Syriac writings are from this kingdom. They are in the form of inscriptions found at Birecik, (near Edessa) dating from 6 AD, (Maricq 1962, Pirenne 1963). These early Syriac inscriptions demonstrate that the Syriac language and script existed before Jesus' ministry
All this tells us is that there is an inscription in Syriac in 6 AD. I haven't disputed the existance of Syriac in 6 AD. The key issue is the script style of estrangelo in which the Peshitta is written and which style did not come into use until appr. 300 AD.
I notice that the "Syriac language and script" existed before Jesus' ministry. This is evasive at best.
quote:
2.Josephus did not write his works in greek (originally anyway) He himself admits that he later translated them into greek.
Josephus wrote Jewish War in aramaic, which was then translated int Greek. Antiquities was written in Greek.
The twenty volumes of the Jewish Antiquities, in which Flavius Josephus explains Jewish history to a non-Jewish audience, appeared in 94. Its model is a book by the Greek historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who wrote twenty books of Roman Antiquities. This time, Josephus wrote the text in Greek and did not use a translator. The result is a text which is less pleasant to read, even though its subject matter is very interesting.
Error 404 - Livius
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by judge, posted 12-02-2002 5:13 PM judge has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 168 (25513)
12-05-2002 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Karl
12-04-2002 10:22 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Karl:
No, because I don't see why the curse has to be lifted for Jesus to be the Messiah. He is of David's line, even though it be a dispossessed line.
Because the Messiah happens to be King of the Jews and Christ's line runs through a man whose line is NEVER, as per God's curse, to produce a king.
quote:
I am suggesting that Matthew included Jeconiah in the lineage not as a proof of Jesus' Messiahship, but as an illustration of what Jesus' work achieves.
I think you are missing the point. How are we to tell who the messiah is except via that messiah's fulfilling of prophecy?
quote:
I agree that redefining is not the same as fulfilling. I suggest that Matthew has Jesus do both - the Messiah's achievements go beyond the prophecies, which is OK theologically - "No ear has ever heard, nor eye has ever seen...."
OK theologically? It means that messiah-hood is up for grabs. Anyone can claim the right by redefining the conditions. You are bypassing the supposed safety measures put in place by the prophets. It is catastrophic theologically.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Karl, posted 12-04-2002 10:22 AM Karl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Karl, posted 12-05-2002 3:44 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 168 (25559)
12-05-2002 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Karl
12-05-2002 3:44 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Karl:
The messiahship is not up for grabs because the existing conditions still have to be met. Adding to them is not a problem.
Adding-to, I would agree, is not a problem. But what you have is not adding. It is modification and alteration. For the claim to be true that Mtthew was adding to the prophecies, the prophecies would first have to be fulfilled. To this one could add. The story Matthew tells is of Christ fulfilling altered prophecies. It isn't the same thing.
quote:
My point is that the Philippians passage I quoted earlier, and to an extent Peter's speech before the crowds at Pentecost (Acts) implies that it was after Christ's passion and resurrection that God exalted Him. If Christ's work removes the curse, then there is no problem.
There is nothing in the prophecies, to my knowledge, suggesting that this is to be the case. If the fulfilling of prophecies is as flexible as it appears you believe, what good are they in determining the identity of the messiah?
quote:
I think part of the problem here is that you're expecting scientific accuracy and logic flow from a pre-scientific, pre-enlightenment book, which was written to bolster pre-existing faith, not to prove a particular theological position from scratch.
Not so. There is nothing complicated about what I ask, nor is there anything beyond the abilities of the people of the time. Why is it, do you think, that most of the Jewish community did not accept Christ as the Messiah? Perhaps because his fulfilling of the prophecies was a joke? Follow the link below for some extracts showing how Jesus was viewed by the Jews.
JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD
quote:
Matthew seems to feel free to pull in whatever illustrations and ubtuse OT passages he feels elucidate what he is trying to say.
Not a problem.
quote:
Had he been Norse, he'd probably have quoted from the story of Balder; had he been Egyptian, he'd probably have used the myth of Osiris.
Of course, then we wouldn't be talking about the Jewish Messiah. How is this point relevant?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Karl, posted 12-05-2002 3:44 AM Karl has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 168 (29189)
01-15-2003 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by w_fortenberry
01-12-2003 4:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Notice that the Bible does not claim that their are fourty-two generations total.
Notice that the Bible does state 3 sets of 14. 3 x 14 = 42. You can't have it both ways. You cannot have 3 sets of 14 and not have 42. This is silly.
Secondly, you have to list one name twice-- David's-- to get 14 names in each set. This is odd, to say the least.
Third, Chronicles 3 lists 18 generations between David and the Babylonian captivity, not fourteen. You can't have it both ways. One book or the other is wrong.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by w_fortenberry, posted 01-12-2003 4:51 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 168 (29592)
01-19-2003 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by w_fortenberry
01-19-2003 4:57 PM


quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Actually Jeconias was not the one cursed; his father Jehoiakim was. This is why Jehoiakim is not mentioned in Matthew's genealogy. Please reference Jeremiah 22:18-30 and Jeremiah 36:30.
What does it matter?
30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye 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 any more in Judah.
Notice that the whole line was cursed. It doesn't matter if it is his son, grandson, great-grandson or Christ himself. The WHOLE line is cursed.
quote:
Thus "Jesus" is the antecedent of each "which." Jesus was the son of Heli. Jesus was the son of Maathat. Jesus was the son of Levi, and so on until the conclusion, Jesus was the son of God.
You can't really be saying what I think you are? More importantly, why?
quote:
Throughout Scripture, different people have been referred to as a son of David. Most of the kings of Judah were compared to David by stating that each of them did or did not do something as did "David his father."
If I am not mistaken those referred to as such were descendants of David.
quote:
Christ himself was called "Jesus, thou son of David." Such usage of terms of relationship is very common in the Scriptures and there is no reason why such usage should not be applied to the genealogy of Christ.
Maybe Christ was called this because it was necessary for him to be the messiah? This doesn't really change the fact that his popularizers screwed up the genealogies.
quote:
Why couldn't it have? How many children do you know who claim the lineage of their adoptive father because they do not have a biological father?
Jewish law does not allow this sort of thing and since Christ was Jewish and supposedly the JEWISH messiah this type of adoption of lineage does not fly.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by w_fortenberry, posted 01-19-2003 4:57 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 168 (30468)
01-28-2003 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by funkmasterfreaky
01-28-2003 4:57 PM


quote:
meh
Funkie, what is this? Several times this has been your response and it makes no sense to me. There must be a secret?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 01-28-2003 4:57 PM funkmasterfreaky 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