Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-18-2019 12:41 AM
218 online now:
DrJones*, LamarkNewAge, PaulK (3 members, 215 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,623 Year: 2,660/19,786 Month: 742/1,918 Week: 29/301 Day: 1/28 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
12Next
Author Topic:   Luke and Matthews geneologies
judge
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 62 of 168 (25481)
12-04-2002 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by doctrbill
12-04-2002 1:14 PM


Hi DB, yes I did forget a comma :-), (my punctuation is almost as bad as my spiling) as for the website, I merely posted it to give some reference for the ephesians quote, whether the other arguments there are any good I don't know (didn't even read them ;-) ).

As for the aramaic bible, it might be easy to assume that there is a direct relationship between the peshitta OT and the peshitta NT, but I think this is probably not the case. From what I can gather the origins of the various books in the peshitta OT are very obscure, at times the variations seem closer to the LXX and at times to a the massoretic.
The OT quotations in the peshitta NT do not necessarily reflect exactly the peshitta NT.

As for the "meturgeman" here is a quick link I just found to show that I didn't make it up ...or if I did I'm not the only one doing so :-). As per the other site I don't necessarily endorse all on this link , but it is a start for you. You can probably find better on google! ;-)
http://www20.brinkster.com/theword/origins/xain2.html

Afor the peshitta NT there is an interlinear being done at www.peshitta.org

[This message has been edited by judge, 12-04-2002]

[This message has been edited by judge, 12-04-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by doctrbill, posted 12-04-2002 1:14 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
judge
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 63 of 168 (25483)
12-04-2002 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by w_fortenberry
12-04-2002 4:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
quote:
Originally posted by judge:
It is often pointed out that if we compare Matthews geneology of Jesus with that of Luke major problems become apparent.

Are you aware of any of the possible solutions to these supposed problems that do not require a working knowledge of Greek or Aramaic?


No , but the solution I provided seems the best to me...it solves every problem by rendering ONE word as father instead of husband! Not only that but the word is used of a FATHER throughout the rest of Matthew.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by w_fortenberry, posted 12-04-2002 4:09 PM w_fortenberry has not yet responded

  
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.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


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

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

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 168 (25528)
12-05-2002 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by John
12-05-2002 12:24 AM


The messiahship is not up for grabs because the existing conditions still have to be met. Adding to them is not a problem.

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.

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. Matthew seems to feel free to pull in whatever illustrations and ubtuse OT passages he feels elucidate what he is trying to say. 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by John, posted 12-05-2002 12:24 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by John, posted 12-05-2002 9:34 AM Karl has not yet responded

  
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?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


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

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 168 (25682)
12-06-2002 3:31 AM


John - I've concluded my part in this discussion with a post down in "Eye of the Needle".
  
shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 168 (25789)
12-06-2002 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by judge
11-16-2002 6:48 AM


As this is my first posting/response, please forgive me if I am not up to speed on all the right protocals.

This topic of geneology "contradictions" is one (of many) which has led me to ask myself one simple question: does the Bible mean what it says, and say what it means?

The many explainations for the differances in the Matthew and Luke geneologies seem awfully conveluted to me, and based on no real information other than "it just has to be that way." And, while they may in fact be exactly right, it is clear that the text is obviously not harmonious internally.

The actual words of our translations clearly say that both geneologies are of Joseph. That's what they obviously state. If so much explaination is needed to clean up the problem for the average reader, how does the literalist claim the Bible to be a clear statement of truth which needs no tinkering from man, interpretation or re-evaluation of our understanding of it's purpose and meaning for us?

I greatly honor scripture for what it teaches me of the Lord, my need for His grace.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by judge, posted 11-16-2002 6:48 AM judge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by judge, posted 12-07-2002 12:46 AM shilohproject has responded

  
judge
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 69 of 168 (25804)
12-07-2002 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by shilohproject
12-06-2002 10:02 PM


quote:
Originally posted by shilohproject:
As this is my first posting/response, please forgive me if I am not up to speed on all the right protocals.

This topic of geneology "contradictions" is one (of many) which has led me to ask myself one simple question: does the Bible mean what it says, and say what it means?

The many explainations for the differances in the Matthew and Luke geneologies seem awfully conveluted to me, and based on no real information other than "it just has to be that way." And, while they may in fact be exactly right, it is clear that the text is obviously not harmonious internally.

The actual words of our translations clearly say that both geneologies are of Joseph. That's what they obviously state. If so much explaination is needed to clean up the problem for the average reader, how does the literalist claim the Bible to be a clear statement of truth which needs no tinkering from man, interpretation or re-evaluation of our understanding of it's purpose and meaning for us?

I greatly honor scripture for what it teaches me of the Lord, my need for His grace.


Hi there! The solution I have proposed is not convoluted. All it requires is that ONE WORD, that being the Aramaic word "gowra" should be translated FATHER instead of HUSBAND.
Because this word has been mistranslated into english ALL the problems occur.
The word "gowra" is used throughout the Aramaic of Matthew in the sense of a FATHER


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by shilohproject, posted 12-06-2002 10:02 PM shilohproject has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by shilohproject, posted 12-07-2002 2:09 AM judge has not yet responded

  
shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 168 (25805)
12-07-2002 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by judge
12-07-2002 12:46 AM


Hi there! The solution I have proposed is not convoluted. All it requires is that ONE WORD, that being the Aramaic word "gowra" should be translated FATHER instead of HUSBAND.
Because this word has been mistranslated into english ALL the problems occur.
The word "gowra" is used throughout the Aramaic of Matthew in the sense of a FATHER[/B][/QUOTE]

Thank you for your response.

Your solution may be the correct one. If so, it is indeed not conveluted or overly complicated. It does, however, still leave my basic question hanging: are we able to take any of the translations available to us at face value? KJV, so honored by the KJV-only folks, uses the same verbage which seems to lead so many readers to mistrust the Bible as being full of contradictions and problems. This cannot be laid at the feet of so-called "new age" translations.

It brings into question the notion of our English translations as being a reliable rendering of an inerant set of scripture. I do not read/speak Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic, so this issue is one of some importance to me.

Having said that, my own life is greatly enriched by the Bible, even if I cannot take any one translation as wholey reliable. (There are other examples one might mention in this matter.)

The question for the Church to answer, in my mind, is whether or not we fit what we believe to align with a reasonable reading of scripture and what we may observe before our very own eyes, or do we torture scripture into some form it might never have meant to be in, order to fit our own belief systems/dogma?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by judge, posted 12-07-2002 12:46 AM judge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Karl, posted 12-09-2002 7:19 AM shilohproject has responded

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 168 (26016)
12-09-2002 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by shilohproject
12-07-2002 2:09 AM


quote:
The question for the Church to answer, in my mind, is whether or not we fit what we believe to align with a reasonable reading of scripture and what we may observe before our very own eyes, or do we torture scripture into some form it might never have meant to be in, order to fit our own belief systems/dogma?

No. I think the question for the church to answer is how to demonstrate the reality of the risen Christ in the world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by shilohproject, posted 12-07-2002 2:09 AM shilohproject has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-09-2002 8:34 AM Karl has not yet responded
 Message 73 by shilohproject, posted 12-09-2002 2:21 PM Karl has not yet responded
 Message 77 by Philip, posted 12-31-2002 2:58 AM Karl has responded

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 168 (26020)
12-09-2002 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Karl
12-09-2002 7:19 AM


quote:
No. I think the question for the church to answer is how to demonstrate the reality of the risen Christ in the world.

Amen and Amen

------------------
saved by grace


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Karl, posted 12-09-2002 7:19 AM Karl has not yet responded

  
shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 168 (26044)
12-09-2002 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Karl
12-09-2002 7:19 AM


Quote:

No. I think the question for the church to answer is how to demonstrate the reality of the risen Christ in the world.[/B][/QUOTE]

Thank you for your reply.

I must agree with you that the Great Commission is our primary calling to the world at large. My question, rather, addresses the need within the Church to examine ourselves; because without such an internal, personal testing, we may well fail to achieve the very goal you mention.

Specific to my earlier posting, I was addressing the issue at hand, namely the inerrancy of various Bible translations and how we apply those truths tucked away in scripture to our own lives and, so, attempt to fulfill the carrying of the Gospel to a people in need.

As long as we present a ridiculous offering to the world, we will be ridiculed and rejected, not for the sake of the Gospel (which we know can indeed happen!) but because of our own arrogant claim that we have a monopoly on understanding God, one which seems to ignore obvious, observable truth.

Without self-examination, who among us would ever have felt that still, soft voice move in our spirit? Perhaps some, but not me. And without daily re-examination, how can one remain open to things bigger than himself? And without that humility, how will we "demonstrate the reality of a risen Christ" to a people in need?

These are simply my thoughts. I'm sorry if you are able to dismiss them as "wrong." Your reply served to remind me, as I always should be, of my obligation to others.

Gratitude.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Karl, posted 12-09-2002 7:19 AM Karl has not yet responded

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 168 (26054)
12-09-2002 3:01 PM


quote:
As long as we present a ridiculous offering to the world, we will be ridiculed and rejected, not for the sake of the Gospel (which we know can indeed happen!) but because of our own arrogant claim that we have a monopoly on understanding God, one which seems to ignore obvious, observable truth.

Quite correct. I wish the Young Earth brigade would realise this.

As regards the rest, yes, we need to self examine and all the rest - that's basic to the spiritual life. However, getting tied up in unnecessary arguments over the minutiae of the text is unimportant. Chuck out inerrancy (which has only dodgy circular Biblical interpretation to support it) and the problems evaporate. Look beyond the contradictions and get a hold of what the Bible writers are trying to say. Who cares that the order of creation is different in Gen. 1 and Gen. 2? Different spiritual truths, neither of them concerned with scientific descriptions. Who cares that Matthew and Luke record different genealogies for an obscure carpenter who turned out to be the Son of God? Trying to express different truths about the Jesus they had experienced on their personal road to Emmaus.

Much more important that we do the same - meet with Jesus on the road to Emmaus, and try our best to express what He is. See, I don't think you're wrong, I just think that this is not where it's really at. These minutiae are best examined after a good meal, with a glass of brandy in front of a roaring fire. And not as if anything really depended upon them, because I don't think it does. Only inerrancy, which is an irrelevance to me.

Only use words if absolutely necessary, as St Francis said.


Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-30-2002 4:12 PM Karl has responded

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 168 (28131)
12-30-2002 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Karl
12-09-2002 3:01 PM


Just back to a reason Luke might have felt led to give the genealogy of the line of Mary, goes right back to Genesis.

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

This is the only time I know of that the seed of the woman is mentioned. Jesus came to crush the serpants head, and the virgin birth would make him the seed of the woman. Does this make any sense? Maybe this is why he was led to give the genealogy he did?

------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Karl, posted 12-09-2002 3:01 PM Karl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Karl, posted 12-31-2002 2:54 AM funkmasterfreaky has not yet responded
 Message 80 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-08-2003 11:01 AM funkmasterfreaky has responded

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 168 (28172)
12-31-2002 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by funkmasterfreaky
12-30-2002 4:12 PM


FMF - I'm sure you are correct. However, there was another reason. By pointing out that Jesus is the offspring of Adam and Eve, Luke is drawing attention to the universality of Jesus' mission - hardly surprising given that Luke was a gentile himself.

So Matthew's genealogy is to illustrate that Jesus is the Son of David and Abraham and therefore the hoped for Messiah of Judaism. Luke's is to illustrate that He is the fulfilment of the hopes of all humanity. Matthew says "Jesus is the Messiah", Luke says "Jesus is a man".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-30-2002 4:12 PM funkmasterfreaky has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019