Question: In the Greek of the earliest copies of Luke, does the word "huios" connect the names?

Question: If it appears in the Greek of the earliest copies of Luke, does "huios" translate ONLY as "biological son of" and NOT as "legal son of" or "adopted son of"?

See Theological Dictionary of the New Testament and/or Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.

Question: If "huios" appears in the Greek of the earliest copies of Luke and translates ONLY as "biological son of" and NOT as "legal son of" or "adopted son of," would THESE facts prove that the Lukan genealogy is of Joseph and not of Mary?

Question: If "huios" appears in the Greek of the earliest copies of Luke and translates ONLY as "biological son of" and NOT as "legal son of" or "adopted son of," and if these facts prove that the Lukan genealogy is of Joseph and not of Mary, would THESE facts prove that there is a contradiction/conflict/inconsistency between these two genealogies?

Question: If "huios" appears in the Greek of the earliest copies of Luke and translates ONLY as "biological son of" and NOT as "legal son of" or "adopted son of," and if these facts prove that the Lukan genealogy is of Joseph and not of Mary, and if these facts prove that there is a contradiction/conflict/inconsistency between these two genealogies, would THESE facts prove that there is something seriously/dramatically wrong with the Christian Bible/the Christian Bible most likely was NOT inspired by a god/the Christian Bible is not 100% accurate/the Christian Bible is not a good source of information about a god and its relations with human beings?

Hello Bob

I am assuming that the question you are asking is about Luke 3:23. The passage in question reads:

Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

In Greek, we have the key phrase (in bold above) reading as follows:

on hos nomizo huios Ioseph Heli

The key expression nomizo huios, or "the son as it was supposed"[/i] does not appear anywhere else in the geneology of Luke, or Matthew (or any other geneology I am aware of), and is generally thought to indicate that Luke did not think that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus. Given that Luke has already told us earlier on in Luke 1:26-31 that Mary was a virgin, this certainly makes sense.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, but there is no way that Luke did not think that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph, and at the same time, he certainly does tell us that Mary is the biological mother of Jesus.

Be well,

Nomad

Nomad...

>You sound like you are from Australia. Am I close?

Nope.

You call this justice?

Oh. I guess you do.

I confess, I'm at a loss to argue any more with a person who has such a twisted idea of "justice." I don't even know where to begin reasoning with that....

You must be kidding me. What an inherently humiliating belief you have there. You spend your life believing you aren't worthy. Sounds to me like. BORN into sin? How does that jive with your notion of "justice"? A&E sinned, and so your god has cursed us all? For something we didn't do? That's "justice"?

Oh my god. So to speak.

My apologies. No, of course I'm not suggesting that repentant sinners be punished. I'm also suggesting that, in the interest of fairness (i.e., justice), no one be punished until they've had a chance to sin. Hence my previous answer.

I just found it a bit silly that you disregard the massive god-ordered genocide throughout the OT so you can say, "See? God forgave Jeconiah! He IS just, after all!"

If you see no problem with your own logic there, you have a serious tunnel-vision problem.

In other words, there is no verse that says he repented. Thanks. This is an assumption you made based on your desire to explain why the curse didn't come to fruition, because you refuse to entertain the notion that it's simply an unfulfilled prophesy. Did I miss anything?

Mmm-hm. And the verse prior to this (Matt 16:27) says, "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works."

Sounds like the Final Coming, or whatever they call it. Peter, James and John weren't rewarded according to their works in your explanation--and "every man" definitely wasn't. Nope. "Transfiguration" doesn't equal "coming in his kingdom." But thank you for playing.

You appear to be having the same difficulty. The most logical explanation is that Jesus and his followers honestly believed this would happen in their lifetimes. (Just an aside, but how could the stars "fall out of heaven" unless they were "tacked" up there?)

Not at all. Unless you're intent on making it make sense in light of your belief that Jesus COULDN'T have meant anything during his lifetime. Then I can see how you'd have problems.

"I've got it, Goldstein! Let's prove Jecohiah wasn't forgiven! That'll throw a wrench into Christian theology. What? It'll also prove our own holy scriptures aren't inspired? Oh, hell. Nobody'll notice. After all, we've slipped that JHWH thing by everybody for centuries."

But what you're saying is that there are some Jews so desperate to disparage Xtianity that they'd willingly discredit their own religion in the process? As my mother is fond of saying, "Why don't you just cut off your nose to spite your face?"

If one of them was stealing bread because he was starving, and loses his hand, anyway ("Sorry, Buddy. I know you're about to perish of hunger and I sympathize and all, but you know the law. Now lay it up on the chopping block."), it isn't justice, because it doesn't incorporate mercy.

Whatever. He says, she says. Contradiction because that's what you want to believe doesn't prove anything, except that you'll believe what you want, all logic aside.

More or less, yes. Educated for the time in which they lived, no doubt, but they merely put into writing the oral history of their people. This is why there are different stories of creation, why ages and numbers of armies are often at odds, and why there are so many unfulfilled prophesies. They wrote what they believed to be true at the time.

This is known as an appeal to antiquity. 'Tis a fallacy. Proves nothing except that, for some reason, these books have survived the test of time. IOWs, it proves what it says. Nothing more.

Consider, though, how many "holy books" have been lost along the way or dropped intentionally because they say something people didn't want to accept or which contradicts something that's been said in another book. These books were, of course, usually labelled "apocryphal." How do we know they weren't authentic? Because they weren't accepted by majority vote. Inspired? I think not.

Considering the mass of religious literature that has been lost over the centuries, it isn't surprising at all that this much has survived.

Why does this volume has such an "impact on the thought, culture, and moral and legal practices of so much of the world"? Because most people don't recognize this fallacy: It's lasted this long. There must be something to it.

Your turn.

diana

Hello Diana

I am sorry that you feel as you do about me.

You see me as twisted, delusional, illogical, and unwilling to accept that your way of viewing the Bible is the only truly acceptable way.

I do not debate with dogmatics on any side of an issue, whether they be literalist fundamentalists that want to argue Creationism and the Flood, or atheists that cannot even imagine that their one and only interpretation of the Bible may, in fact, be in error. The fact that you remain unwilling to even attempt to listen to a side that differs from your own tells me that we are about done on this thread.

All I could see from your post was condesention, close mindedness, and sarcasm. Unfortunately I am too busy to engage in dialogue with such a person. If, on the other hand, you are open to discussion, and show a willingness to actually listen to what I have to say, then perhaps we can resume.

I hope that you have a change of heart.

Nomad

Did I miss judgement day? Bastard! I was looking forward to that. Or do they have to come back out of heaven to be judged later? How do you qualify for instant access then? Or is it just another example of the bible authors not thinking the fairy tale through properly?

Boro Nut

I was kidding.

You didn't see my post which consisted of nothing but "Nomad, are you going to reply to my prompts above?"

You should not presume so much. I merely meant that after years of sunday school, catholic school, debating, and reading, none of the arguments and whatnot are new to me. If you have some groundbreaking new idea, lay it on me, baby.

See above. I never claimed to know every little fact about christianity.

What are you waiting for? Offer them.

BTW, don't you mean "Ask God?

People were left out according to whom? How many people were left out?

I should think what I meant was obvious. You knew what I meant by "Why?" Stop dodging.

If you were recording something this important, wouldn't you want to get everything right?

What would you call forced, non-consentual impregnation? Ask your wife.

It has nothing to do with mercy. One passage contradicts another. It is illogical to assume that god forgave him. Does it say, "Jeconiah repented, and god saw this, and he was forgiven?"

1. That does not mean he is the legal son of Joseph.

2. Now that you know he wasn't, why is this valid?

It has already been established that it was thought that Jesus was the son of Joseph because Mary bore him.

In the absence of evidence, it is illogical to assume that Jesus was Joseph's legal son. More likely (as stated above), Jesus was thought to be Joseph's biological son.

I never asked for proof. Only support.

No. It is reasonable that Jacob and Heli were brothers, but it is not reasonable to believe this based on nothing. In fact, in the abscence of evidence that they were brothers, this becomes an invalid explanation. You might as well claim that Heli and Jacob were but different names for the same person and both geneaologies are Joseph's. This solves the problem equally well, but without support, it is illogical to believe it.

The abscence of evidence in favor is the evidence against.

Considering that you obviously try to convince non-believers, and we do see it as a big issue, perhaps you should look into it further.

We could recommend books to each other til the cows come home. Try this.

Dismissal of the explanation.

This has nothing to do with whether Jesus is a bastard or not. I admitted earlier that that was a mistake; no you are the one who is mistaken. What you replied to was your other scenario to explain why levirate marriage applies.

I am barking up a very different tree, Nomad.

I made no such error.

So was Jeconiah actually punished, or just told that he was punished? Would he have repented without the punishment?

Please stop bringing children and parenting into this. The "God is parent, humans are children" analogy is a very very bad one.

You missed the humor. You must be an exceedingly humorless individual; the facetiousness was quite obvious.

You miss the point. The christian god is by nature unchanging, eternal, and omniscient. It is logically impossible for such a being to change.

I fail to see how a being who commands the slaughter of babies and women, and in some cases carries it out himself, is fit to condemn me to eternal suffering simply for not believing in him.

Do not look at it. Read it.

I did not address that because it is moot. God is not just.

1. Please provide links to these previous postings.
2. The fact that something has been mentioned before does not automatically make it unoriginal.
3. I'm sure that everything you say is original.
4. Stop being such an asshole.
5. What's with the wink? Were you kidding?
6. When did I pat myself on the back?
7. Leibniz and Newton both invented calculus independently of one another. Does that diminish the brilliance of one of them?
8. Do not call me "sport."

[This message has been edited by Patrick Bateman (edited January 29, 2001).]

Nomad...

I'm not sure how I feel about you. I've noticed how gracious of an arguer you are, which stands you in good stead as a Christian. I get irritated each time you side-step an argument.

Wow. That's harsh. And not the words I would have used. I see you as lacking in logic when it suits you (you fill in the blanks as you see fit, which is taking liberties with the text), and you are blind to the incredible injustices your god has wreaked upon mankind, because you have your mind made up he's good, just and merciful, all evidence to the contrary.

I would not, however, call you twisted and delusional. These are words I reserve for serial killers.

And I never said my way of interpreting the Bible was the only acceptable way. I implied it, I expect...just as you did. And why do YOU feel that your way of interpreting the Bible is the only acceptable way? Because it makes sense to YOU, that's why. Same here. Only difference is, my way doesn't require you to first have faith.

A good friend of mine once said to me in exasperation, "Why do I argue with you? You always think you're right!"

I said, "Of course I think I'm right. If I weren't so sure of myself, I wouldn't be arguing." Duh.

Does this mean I never admit defeat? Far from it. But I require evidence and logic before I back down. He who argues with conjecture convinces me not.

Why not? I argue with Xtians who cannot even imagine that their one and only interpretation of the Bible may, in fact, be in error. Not naming names, of course....

Likewise, I'm sure.

The truly ironic thing here is, you appear to think you're listening to (and considering the logic of) my side, but I'm dismissing yours out of hand.

There was a little humor in there, too. And a couple of valid points, even. Sarcasm is how I make points when simple logic appears to be falling on deaf ears. It's my way of upping the volume.

And you've shown a willingness to actually listen to what I have to say?

It has repeatedly been my experience that the person who either (a) announces his open-mindedness, or (b) accuses others of being close-minded, has changed his mind a couple of times in the past, but NOW is convinced HE has the right answers. He's more close-minded, as a rule, than the people he presumes to condemn (particularly when he's convinced God is on his side).

The problem is, I think, that your belief precludes you from truly entertaining my ideas. In order to do this, you'd have to allow yourself to imagine that your god is a figment of your imagination, wishful thinking, a warm-fuzzy that society has given you--and that would be heresy, blasphemy, or something equally awful and sinful. So you can't really even "listen" to me.

Your job here, to put it bluntly, is to shoot my ideas down. Just admit it and move on.

diana

A Standard for Deities.

Would there be anything wrong with setting a standard for deities?

How about this?: Thou shalt not permit men to write or copy holy books about thee and thy works without thine direct inspiration and intervention; and let there be no more than one account of persons/things/events; and let there be no contradictions nor confusions nor absurdities within the words that thou shalt inspire; and let thy words mean as men mean them, not to have special meanings no man can properly and surely divine; and in all things thy words must be truthful, so men can know thee without hesitation.

Living up to such a standard ought to be easy for deities.

And when we find holy books not meeting this standard, ought we to have the right to reject their claims to be holy books?

I do not have enough time to reply in sufficient depth to both to Diana and Patrick, so I will make this simple.

I have demonstrated that the "curse of Jeconiah" (I use this expression because it is how it is phrased by the Jewish anti-missionaries I have debated in the past. If your preference is to call it a prophecy instead, that is cool. Personally I don't really care) did not prevent Jesus from becoming the Messiah, and, in fact, that being descended from Jeconiah by Zerubbabel is one of the requirements of any Messiah.

Both of you have called this a contradiction in the Bible. In your view, since God has cursed Jeconiah, He is not permitted to change His mind later on and forgive him and lift the curse. I have demonstrated that this is simply not the case, since the God of the Bible is both just (in punishing sin), and merciful (by forgiving a repentant sinner). I cannot and will not view justice and mercy as contradictory concepts, and unless you are prepared to demonstrate that God's mercy contradicts God's justice in some fashion, then your argument fails.

As for the genealogical questions themselves, I have offered what I have found from various sources. I know for a fact that there are others that have pursued this question in far more depth than I have. Since I have said from the beginning that this particular question is of extremely limited interest to me, I don't know how much more candid I can be. I believe each of us is free to pursue those arguments that interest them the most. The answers I have found and offered on this thread (and others) satisfy me. If they do not satisfy you, then please take it up with someone more inclined to argue this point. My recommendation is Glen Miller of the Christian Think Tank, or JP Holding of Tektonics Ministries. Both of them seem to thrive on this kind of stuff, and do invite questions on any topic. Personally, I couldn't be bothered to dedicate more time to Christ's geneology than I already have.

However, that said, I will ask a very sincere question to Patrick for his consideration. If I DO spend the time, and put together a coherent and possible solution to your questions regarding the leverite marriage of Mary and Joseph, will you accept it, and agree that it can be logically explained? I am not asking you to believe my arguments, but if I am going to spend a bunch of time on this question, I do want to know if, at the end of the day, I will have simply pounded my head on a big old rock, or if you will be open to possibilities other than what you have offered to date?

If you are open to possible explanations, then I will look into it. Please let me know.

As for Diana, if you feel the need to be sarcastic and condescending, and you genuinely believe that I do not think about all of the things that my God is said to have done in the Bible, all I can tell you is that you are mistaken. I never check my logic at the door about anything. Many times I will eventually admit that I simply do not have all of the answers, because I have come to see that as a truism. But if you think my ideas and reasoning are simply rationalizations, with no foundation whatsover, then what would be the purpose of you and I talking about the Bible or the Christian God?

I am not trying to be condescending here, but I am seriously overstretched on these Boards (and others as well), and I make a sincere effort to explain my positions as best as I can in every thread in which I am a participant. If all I can expect for my efforts is mindless attacks, and dismissals without explanation, then, nothing personal, but I do not have time for that.

As with Patrick, I do not expect you to accept my arguments. I only ask that you try to understand the reasoning behind them. I do hear what you have said. That I reject your reasoning does not mean that I think it is entirely unreasonable. It means, only, that I do not find your arguments convincing.

So that you know, I was an agnostic before I converted. It takes a mountain of evidence, and huge amounts of patience and solid argumentation to convince me that I am wrong. But it can be done, and I will debate anyone on a topic that interests me. But I will not engage in dialogue for its own sake. I do not have the time.

Thank you both, again, for your thoughts and questions. Perhaps we can still talk about this topic. I leave that up to you. If you want to go deeper, please let me know, but I want you to understand my expectations going in.

Peace,

Nomad

Nomad:

Yep. When my arguments are ignored, discounted and sidestepped, I do. Thanks for noticing.

The only way I could think to point out to you how ridiculous your "even Jewish historians corroborate my story" argument was, was to be sarcastic. Straight common sense didn't seem to be making an impression.

I don't know if my sarcastic approach did any better. All I know is that you dropped the argument altogether in lieu of being condescending about my approach, almost in the same breath you condemned me for being condescending (irony is alive and well).

I think the Jews can afford to "admit" Jeconiah's lifted curse in order to preserve the illusion of the integrity of their scriptures. They're merely serving their own self-interest to "back you up" on this one. Trust me, they still have plenty of prophesies to rip into in order to disprove the divinity of Jesus.

I genuinely believe you pigeonhole the activities of your god. When you're demonstrating Jeconiah's supposed repentance and subsequent merciful forgiveness, you conveniently forget about the supreme injustice of the flood (just to pick one). In your mind, this was "God's justice," as you pointed out, because even the infants were sinners. Apparently, you see massive genocide as "justice."

If it was then, wouldn't it still be? Then why did Hitler get such a bad rap? Even if god "changed his mind" (as I'm sure you'll say), why would "justice" change?

And if I don't believe you, just ask you and you'll tell me. Right?

In the future, you might try to avoid telling me what I think. You were half right in this case. I don't think you have "no foundation whatsoever," however. The foundation upon which you base your rationalizations is your faith.

In order to have a basis for argument, we must first agree on the premises. As I noted above, your interpretations and arguments are largely based on your faith. And no...unless you can provide a solid reason for me to believe in something I can't imagine, sight unseen, there really is no purpose to you and me talking about the Bible or the Christian god.

Fare thee well.

diana