|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4445 days) Posts: 88 From: Katrinaville USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Brian writes: 2 Samuel 7:12-13 states: When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. God makes it clear that it is through Solomon, who built the Temple (House for my Name), that the Messiah will come from. Yes, and he was thru the family line of Solomon...so whats the problem?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Except that he doesn't try to do that. He says that the lineage is through Joseph.
quote: The problem seems quite clear. You haven't produced one good reason to think that Luke is giving Mary's genealogy. All you've offered is unsupported assertions (which you refuse to support) that don't even agree with each other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Paulk writes: The problem seems quite clear. You haven't produced one good reason to think that Luke is giving Mary's genealogy. All you've offered is unsupported assertions (which you refuse to support) that don't even agree with each other. i dont know what your gettting at seriously Luke's geneology goes thru Heli who was Mary's father...father by blood... he WAS marys family line and this is not a problem because Joseph was the 'ADOPTIVE FATHER' of Jesus anyway... this gave jesus the legal status is as a son joseph and vise versa. Mathew traces the family line of Joseph back to David. Both families, Mary and Joseph, were of the kingly line. What is so hard to accept about this??? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: You haven't offered any good reason to think that Luke is giving Mary's genealogy. Why is that so hard to understand ?
quote: Was he ? Where is the evidence that Heli was Mary's father ?
quote: And back we go to the contradictions. If Joseph's line is the one that matters it is nuts to say that Luke was giving Mary's lineage.
quote: The fact that you have produced no evidence that Mary's family was of any kingly line. Simply repeating an assertion does not make it true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Paulk writes: And back we go to the contradictions. If Joseph's line is the one that matters it is nuts to say that Luke was giving Mary's lineage. The fact that you have produced no evidence that Mary's family was of any kingly line. Simply repeating an assertion does not make it true. Ok so basically you are against the idea that one can take any part of the biblical record on face value. its interesting that our understanding of the lives, cultures and histories of ancient nations are taken from their historical documents and historians, but its not acceptable to do this with the bible. Both parents lines have been given in the gospels, so obviously both parents were traced to the Davidic line and there are no records of any historian writing anything about these genealogies being challenged by opposes. If Jesus family line could be challenged, the Jewish scribes and pharisees would have challenged them in a flash seeing they held the records Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2294 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Peg writes:
Of course. This goes for any document.
Ok so basically you are against the idea that one can take any part of the biblical record on face value. its interesting that our understanding of the lives, cultures and histories of ancient nations are taken from their historical documents and historians, but its not acceptable to do this with the bible.
This is because those documents are supported by other evidence. Or because there are so many documents claiming the same thing, it is reasonable to assume they're true. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Where in the Bible does it say that Heli is Mary's father ?
quote: How do you know this when the Bible does not claim to give Mary's line ?
quote: The last time you were asked to support that claim you said that the Romans held the records. And you couldn't show that that was true, either. So, can you show that the Jewish "scribes and pharisees" had the records ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Hi Peg,
quote: I can't speak for PaulK, but that certainly sums up my view. But see below...
quote: No. No, no, no. You can't take any historical document at face value, whether it is the Bible, the Ipuwer document or the campaign journals of Julius Caesar. All ancient texts must be viewed critically, to avoid falling foul of their biases, misapprehensions and (sometimes) downright lies. This is especially true of documents that make supernatural claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Would you view the tale of Muhammad's night flight to Mecca on a flying horse with uncritical eyes? Does the Quran get the same free pass that you seem give the Bible? Of course not. There is no double standard amongst historians, save for those who treat the Bible as fact, whilst dismissing other religious texts as fables. As it happens, such individuals are always extremely devout Christians.
quote: That isn't going to get any truer by your repeating it ad nauseum. You were asked a direct question and you have deliberately ignored it. How do you know that Mary was the daughter of Heli? Ignoring difficult questions does not make them go away.
quote: A situation entirely compatible with the hypothesis that there was never any such person as Jesus.
quote: Not if there was no such record to challenge in the first place. Anyway, what makes you think Jewish scholars haven't challenged the Jesus bloodline? I would expect them to have raised exactly the same objections as you are seeing here. Mutate and Survive "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
thanks to Granny Magda, i see where you are coming from now
you could have made this easier for me simply by saying that just because its written in the bible, doesn mean its true, therefore Mary could have been anyones daughter etc etc thats fair enough if thats the way you look at there is no point in me going further.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Granny Magda writes: A situation entirely compatible with the hypothesis that there was never any such person as Jesus. Josephus wrote about Jesus and his followers Josephus was Born just four years after the death of Christ, he was an eyewitness to the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy about the first-century Jewish nation. He was a military commander, a diplomat, a Pharisee, and a scholar. He was not a christian, therefore he was completely unbiased external source. Obviously Jesus was a real historical person.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Obviously you still do NOT see my point. Let's start with this fact. IT IS NOT WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE THAT MARY WAS HELI'S DAUGHTER. Do you understand that ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Says M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774): “In constructing their genealogical tables,
it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather' Do you see what this is saying??? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Yes. I also see that it does NOT say that the maternal grandfather was always listed as the father's father. I also know - because I have already answered it earlier in the thread - that it is NOT supported by the verses they quote.
So we need evidence that it is true, and evidence that it applied in the specific case of Luke's genealogy. (And of course if those points are true your assertion that the Jews would not accept Mary's genealogy is false, and the genealogy in Matthew is wrong).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
im sorry, i still fail to see your point
the way im reading this is that each gospel gave the family line, thru mary aka joseph via his father inlaw heli and thru Josephs family in mathew Why Luke would do this is obvious. The jews didnt record females in their geneologies, only males. Joseph became the 'son in law' of Heli when he married Mary, therefore, he logically traced Mary's line thru Joseph and Heli, because Joseph would have been on public record now as a son of Heli. At the same time Joseph's biological father's family could also be traced back to the kingly line.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Let us put it simply. Your quote from McLintock and Strong is NOT evidence that Luke was giving Mary's genealogy. Even if it were true (and it probably is not) it would only mean that Luke MIGHT be giving Mary's genealogy, and that only if certain other conditions were met (and Luke doesn't say that they are). (If you had bothered to answer my original rebuttal and actually READ the verses that McLintock and Strong cite - and more importantly the following verses that they DON'T cite - you might understand more.)
quote: And I am asking you to give me the evidence to support that reading. And instead all I get is speculations - and not even a coherent set of speculations.
quote: The Gospel of Matthew (supposedly written by a Jew) includes women in the genealogy. You have produced no evidence that these alleged "public records" were even available, let alone evidence that they would list Joseph as Heli's son. Suppose that Luke had thought that Heli were really Joseph's father and not Mary's, how would his genealogy be any different ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024