Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus?
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 31 of 306 (492988)
01-05-2009 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Brian
01-04-2009 10:55 AM


Re: You really should read the Bible
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Brian, posted 01-04-2009 10:55 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Brian, posted 01-05-2009 1:22 PM Peg has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 32 of 306 (492992)
01-05-2009 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Peg
01-05-2009 2:59 AM


Re: In regards to the geneaology of Jesus
quote:
Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary.
Except that he doesn't try to do that. He says that the lineage is through Joseph.
quote:
I'm not sure what you see the problem as being, perhaps you could re phrase your concern???
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 2:59 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 3:58 AM PaulK has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 33 of 306 (492993)
01-05-2009 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by PaulK
01-05-2009 3:48 AM


Re: In regards to the geneaology of Jesus
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 01-05-2009 3:48 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 01-05-2009 4:03 AM Peg has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 34 of 306 (492995)
01-05-2009 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Peg
01-05-2009 3:58 AM


Re: In regards to the geneaology of Jesus
quote:
i dont know what your gettting at seriously
You haven't offered any good reason to think that Luke is giving Mary's genealogy. Why is that so hard to understand ?
quote:
Luke's geneology goes thru Heli who was Mary's father...father by blood... he WAS marys family line
Was he ? Where is the evidence that Heli was Mary's father ?
quote:
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.
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:
Both families, Mary and Joseph, were of the kingly line. What is so hard to accept about this???
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 3:58 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 4:18 AM PaulK has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 35 of 306 (492996)
01-05-2009 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by PaulK
01-05-2009 4:03 AM


Re: In regards to the geneaology of Jesus
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 01-05-2009 4:03 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Huntard, posted 01-05-2009 4:52 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 01-05-2009 5:00 AM Peg has replied
 Message 38 by Granny Magda, posted 01-05-2009 5:20 AM Peg has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 36 of 306 (492997)
01-05-2009 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Peg
01-05-2009 4:18 AM


Re: In regards to the geneaology of Jesus
Peg writes:
Ok so basically you are against the idea that one can take any part of the biblical record on face value.
Of course. This goes for any document.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 4:18 AM Peg has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 37 of 306 (492999)
01-05-2009 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Peg
01-05-2009 4:18 AM


Re: In regards to the geneaology of Jesus
quote:
Ok so basically you are against the idea that one can take any part of the biblical record on face value.
Where in the Bible does it say that Heli is Mary's father ?
quote:
Both parents lines have been given in the gospels...
How do you know this when the Bible does not claim to give Mary's line ?
quote:
If Jesus family line could be challenged, the Jewish scribes and pharisees would have challenged them in a flash seeing they held the records
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 4:18 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 6:05 AM PaulK has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 38 of 306 (493002)
01-05-2009 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Peg
01-05-2009 4:18 AM


Re: In regards to the geneaology of Jesus
Hi Peg,
quote:
Ok so basically you are against the idea that one can take any part of the biblical record on face value.
I can't speak for PaulK, but that certainly sums up my view. But see below...
quote:
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.
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:
Both parents lines have been given in the gospels
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:
there are no records of any historian writing anything about these genealogies being challenged by opposes.
A situation entirely compatible with the hypothesis that there was never any such person as Jesus.
quote:
If Jesus family line could be challenged, the Jewish scribes and pharisees would have challenged them in a flash seeing they held the records
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 4:18 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 6:12 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 39 of 306 (493006)
01-05-2009 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by PaulK
01-05-2009 5:00 AM


Re: In regards to the geneaology of Jesus
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 01-05-2009 5:00 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 01-05-2009 6:15 AM Peg has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 40 of 306 (493008)
01-05-2009 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Granny Magda
01-05-2009 5:20 AM


Re: In regards to the geneaology of Jesus
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Granny Magda, posted 01-05-2009 5:20 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-05-2009 7:27 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 47 by 8upwidit2, posted 01-05-2009 7:56 AM Peg has replied
 Message 49 by Huntard, posted 01-05-2009 12:44 PM Peg has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 41 of 306 (493009)
01-05-2009 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Peg
01-05-2009 6:05 AM


Re: In regards to the geneaology of Jesus
quote:
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
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 6:05 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 6:20 AM PaulK has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 42 of 306 (493010)
01-05-2009 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by PaulK
01-05-2009 6:15 AM


Re: In regards to the geneaology of Jesus
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 01-05-2009 6:15 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 01-05-2009 6:25 AM Peg has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 43 of 306 (493011)
01-05-2009 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Peg
01-05-2009 6:20 AM


Re: In regards to the geneaology of Jesus
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 6:20 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 6:34 AM PaulK has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 44 of 306 (493012)
01-05-2009 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by PaulK
01-05-2009 6:25 AM


Re: In regards to the geneaology of Jesus
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 01-05-2009 6:25 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 01-05-2009 7:26 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 51 by Blue Jay, posted 01-05-2009 6:09 PM Peg has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 45 of 306 (493014)
01-05-2009 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Peg
01-05-2009 6:34 AM


Re: In regards to the geneaology of Jesus
quote:
im sorry, i still fail to see your point
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:
the way im reading this is that each gospel gave the family line, thru mary aka joseph via his father inlaw heli
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:
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.
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 6:34 AM Peg 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