Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9025 total)
49 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 47 visitors)
Newest Member: Ryan Merkle
Post Volume: Total: 882,919 Year: 565/14,102 Month: 565/294 Week: 52/269 Day: 12/6 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lineage of Jesus
Admin
Director
Posts: 12709
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 31 of 82 (47732)
07-28-2003 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by sup32string
07-28-2003 11:23 AM


Hi sup32string,

Your last message is a recapitulation of your position, explained at greater length and with good examples and analogies, that many early Christian documents are not reliable, and that therefore Jesus did not exist. It was well stated, but it is just a starting point for discussion, and the discussion was already well underway anyway. In order to carry the discussion forward you must begin addressing the specific points addressed to you in rebuttal. In other words, you're going to have to actually consider the evidence.

------------------

--Percy
 EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by sup32string, posted 07-28-2003 11:23 AM sup32string has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by sup32string, posted 07-28-2003 12:34 PM Admin has responded

  
sup32string
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 82 (47739)
07-28-2003 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Admin
07-28-2003 12:00 PM


By restating my posisition and giving some analogies I was hoping to show how many if not all the works we have today that mention Jesus are most likely a fabrication. One can not weigh the evidence if said evidence is in question. I was hoping by writing this, that all who read it, may re-look at all the information already given at this point, and understand why I question the evidence. As far as adressing the evidence, again I was trying to show that the evidence has been tampered with in some way, therfore it no longer can be considered as evidence. In a court of law if evidence of any sort has been tampered with, that evidence is thrown out. I was also trying to give a basis for a line of arguing, mainly that the works of Christian History, and history in general can not be complety trusted, even known facts are colored by those who teach the facts. In school The facts presented about the native indians were so biased that it caused me to argue with the teacher that we were not being taught the facts, mearly a biased version of them. I did win that argument, although it really did not change things. So I was summing up what I already know and setting a base for future argument in that area, hehe I felt a need to make it clear so I can proceed. Thanks for your imput.

------------------
--ignorance is humankind's worst enemy--


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Admin, posted 07-28-2003 12:00 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Admin, posted 07-28-2003 1:21 PM sup32string has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12709
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 33 of 82 (47750)
07-28-2003 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by sup32string
07-28-2003 12:34 PM


Hi sup32string,

One can not weigh the evidence if said evidence is in question. I was hoping by writing this, that all who read it, may re-look at all the information already given at this point, and understand why I question the evidence.

By not addressing any of the specifics of the rebuttals and by merely restating your premis you give the strong impression that you wish to avoid examining the evidence. You have explained how it is possible that the available sources may have experienced tempering and/or fabrication, but that only means that it is possible, not that it happened. In order to make your case that it happened you will have to examine and discuss the actual sources themselves and looking for internal and external contradictions, inconsistencies, impossibilities, etc.

Rule 2 of the Forum Guidelines states:

Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.
You have made your position clear. Now it is time to make your case.

------------------

--Percy
 EvC Forum Administrator

[Fix link to Forum Guidelines. --Admin]

[This message has been edited by Admin, 07-28-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by sup32string, posted 07-28-2003 12:34 PM sup32string has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Jake22, posted 07-28-2003 3:09 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
Jake22
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 82 (47765)
07-28-2003 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Admin
07-28-2003 1:21 PM


Hehe, I see what you're saying sup. Makes sense to me. I suppose the typical Christian at this point in the discussion would state something to the effect of, "that could be true, but if there's a God creating an inspired work of literature that is to be his revelation to mankind, then he'd be sure that only truth found its way in the compilation." Of course to skeptics this sounds like nonsense and an indication of a weak mind.
I have some opinions about other posts thus far, but they consist mostly of logical arguments and will probably just waste all of our time, so I'll keep my thoughts to myself. Thanks for the input, sorry mod if this post is guilty of sup's crime of rehashing . Thanks again for the discussion guys.
Jake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Admin, posted 07-28-2003 1:21 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
judge
Member (Idle past 5197 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 35 of 82 (50701)
08-16-2003 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dave901
07-21-2003 12:46 AM


aramaic holds the key
There is one word mistranslated in our english bibles which explains this apparent contradiction.

In matthew 1:16 it should read joseph the father of mary.
Both Mary's father and husband were called joseph.
The two men are differentiated in the aramaic version of Matthew.
Both words gowra for father and baala for husband were translated from aramaic to greek as "aner".

this also means we have 42 (3X14) generations as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dave901, posted 07-21-2003 12:46 AM Dave901 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Brian, posted 08-16-2003 9:33 AM judge has not yet responded
 Message 39 by judge, posted 08-17-2003 3:49 AM judge has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 36 of 82 (50703)
08-16-2003 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by judge
08-16-2003 9:05 AM


Re: aramaic holds the key
HI Judge,

The two men are differentiated in the aramaic version of Matthew.

There is an Aramaic version of Matthew?

Could you point me in the direction of this please?

Thanks.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by judge, posted 08-16-2003 9:05 AM judge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by John, posted 08-16-2003 10:31 AM Brian has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 82 (50706)
08-16-2003 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Brian
08-16-2003 9:33 AM


Re: aramaic holds the key
The gospels were translated into aramaic very early. Probably the most well know of those translations is the Peshitta.

Judge is convinced that the aramaic is the original language of the NT, rather than a translation. His arguments depend upon that primacy of aramaic. Judge and I have been through that debate already.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=1&t=45&m=3#3
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=44&p=6

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Brian, posted 08-16-2003 9:33 AM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Brian, posted 08-16-2003 10:53 AM John has responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 38 of 82 (50707)
08-16-2003 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by John
08-16-2003 10:31 AM


Re: aramaic holds the key
Hi John,

Thanks for the clarification.

What surprised me wasn't that the Gospels were available in Aramaic, what surprised me was that Judge's post suggests that they were available in Aramaic before Greek as he said 'from Aramaic to Greek '

I will read through the links, many thanks.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by John, posted 08-16-2003 10:31 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by judge, posted 08-17-2003 3:57 AM Brian has not yet responded
 Message 42 by John, posted 08-18-2003 12:11 AM Brian has not yet responded

  
judge
Member (Idle past 5197 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 39 of 82 (50755)
08-17-2003 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by judge
08-16-2003 9:05 AM


Re: aramaic holds the key
Hi Brian,

You can find an aramaic/english interlinear here

www.peshitta.org

You can find a translation here which is not wqord for word but rather "dynamic equivalence"

www.v-a.com

You can find the peshitto here

www.peshitta.com

the peshitta is the original it is used in the liturgy of the COE

The peshitto is an edited peshitta. It was edited to bring it more into line with monophysitic views.

p.s. there is another old thread here which deals specifically with matthew versus lukes geneologies.

I could not find it but if you can it would be worth looking at

[This message has been edited by judge, 08-17-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by judge, posted 08-16-2003 9:05 AM judge has not yet responded

  
judge
Member (Idle past 5197 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 40 of 82 (50756)
08-17-2003 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Brian
08-16-2003 10:53 AM


The other geneology thread

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Brian, posted 08-16-2003 10:53 AM Brian has not yet responded

  
phil
Unregistered


Message 41 of 82 (50779)
08-17-2003 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dave901
07-21-2003 12:46 AM


Re: Lineage of Jesus
The original question regarding the differing lineages of Jesus does not seem to have been answered. . . .

The four Gospels each have a theme to them. Matthew presents Jesus as King. Mark presents Jesus as a servant. Luke presents Jesus as the Son of Man. And finally, John presents Jesus as God.

Matthew includes the lineage of Jesus to show the significant figures in the genealogy of Christ. The genealogy starts with Abraham, "the first Jew", to show that Christ is, indeed, the "King of the Jews." There are many other notable figures in this genealogy, including King David and his son Solomon (take note: the genealogy presenting Christ as King traces the lineage through Solomon and not Nathan).

Mark does not include a lineage of Jesus at all. Why? In the time of Christ the genealogy of a servant was not significant. In the same way, John does not include a lineage because it is a portrayal of Christ as the Everlasting God, who is and always has been, and has no genealogy.

Luke does include a genealogy of Christ, but it differs greatly from the one in Matthew. First off, Luke traces Christ's lineage all the way back to Adam, the first man, to show that Christ is, indeed, the "Son of Man." Luke therefore focuses on the fact the Jesus was born to a woman (Mary) and even focuses on Mary herself in the early chapters.

Matthew and Luke's lineages are identical from Abraham to King David, but after this they do not agree at all until Joseph, Jesus' "father." Why such a seemingly blatant contradiction in the Word of God? Simple. Matthew traces Jesus' lineage through Joseph, the man--the "head of the household", because he was portraying Jesus as a king and the father's genealogy was what mattered. Luke, on the other hand, traces Christ's lineage through Mary. Although it lists Joseph as Jesus' father, it is meant as the household of Joseph, in which Mary is included. Luke even alludes to this in verse 23 of the same chapter: "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old. . .He was the son, SO IT WAS THOUGHT, of Joseph. . ." Luke is not only pointing out that Joseph is not Christ's real father (God is), but also that this particular lineage is traced through Mary. This accounts for the differences in the genealogies.

The fact that each gospel is written in such a manner where each portrays Christ in a different way is proof to me that "all Scripture is God-breathed."

Finally, there is a mysterious "Cainan" between Arphaxad and Shelah in the Luke genealogy that does not appear in Genesis. I have heard this is because Cainan is Shelah's father, and Arphaxad was Shelah's stepfather, and Luke included both whereas Moses omitted Cainan (because he was cursed and cast-off, or something like that). I know that last part was a bit unclear, but hopefully you understand what I am saying.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dave901, posted 07-21-2003 12:46 AM Dave901 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by judge, posted 08-18-2003 2:55 AM You have responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 82 (50796)
08-18-2003 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Brian
08-16-2003 10:53 AM


Re: aramaic holds the key
quote:
I will read through the links, many thanks.

Any input would be appreciated. I was quite enjoying that discussion... then it died.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Brian, posted 08-16-2003 10:53 AM Brian has not yet responded

  
judge
Member (Idle past 5197 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 43 of 82 (50803)
08-18-2003 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by phil
08-17-2003 9:44 PM


Re: Lineage of Jesus
Hi phil,

See here....
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=29&p=6

Mary's father was called joseph also. This was mistranslated into greek and then into english.

[This message has been edited by judge, 08-18-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by phil, posted 08-17-2003 9:44 PM phil has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Dave901, posted 08-18-2003 5:22 PM judge has responded
 Message 45 by phil, posted 08-18-2003 5:55 PM judge has not yet responded

  
Dave901
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 82 (50894)
08-18-2003 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by judge
08-18-2003 2:55 AM


Re: Lineage of Jesus
Are you implying Mary was Jesus’ mother genetically? I’ve always thought (maybe assumed) that Jesus was planted in Mary without any of Mary’s genes. If that is the case did Jesus have genes? If so who’s genes did he get? If God is his father, would he have God’s genes? Does God have genes? I wouldn’t think so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by judge, posted 08-18-2003 2:55 AM judge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by judge, posted 08-18-2003 11:00 PM Dave901 has not yet responded

  
phil
Unregistered


Message 45 of 82 (50905)
08-18-2003 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by judge
08-18-2003 2:55 AM


Re: Lineage of Jesus
"Mary's father was called joseph also. This was mistranslated into greek and then into english."

That may very well be. Either way, the genealogy in Luke is through Mary, and not Joseph, Jesus' "father."

Dave901 writes: "Are you implying Mary was Jesus' mother genetically?"

I think this is addressed to me even though it is listed as a reply to judge. . . . . .Anyway, I am not implying that Mary was Jesus' father genetically. All I mean is that Jesus was born to Mary, and she is therefore his mother. Jesus might have been genetically linked to Mary, but there is no way of determing this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by judge, posted 08-18-2003 2:55 AM judge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by judge, posted 08-18-2003 11:01 PM You have responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021