Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Wow.. amazing ... all of this for a simple corruption in a couple of alexandrian manuscripts that is not in the historic Bible. Let's jump down to my proposed disclaimer.

PROPOSED DISCLAIMER

"This claimed 'smackdown' error in Matthew 1:7 does not relate at all to the historic English Bible (the King James Bible or any Reformation Bibles, English, German, Spanish, or other languages)."

"Please note that this claimed error has not been shown at all to be in any of the following-
a) Vast majority of Greek manuscripts, (which have Asa), or the
b) Latin Vulgate and its English translation, the Douay-Rheims, or the
c) Old Latin manuscripts, or the
d) Aramaic Peshitta.
e) Early church writers, Greek, Latin or Aramaic "

A perfect example of the skeptics and errantists going bonkers and haywire by piggy-backing on the absurd 'modern scientific textual criticism' theories that can magnify a couple of scribally ultra-corrupt manuscripts over hundreds of widely diverse manuscripts from multiple lands and languages.

Thanks, Joe.

There are many doctrinally and textually more significant examples, however sometimes the more mundane, without any direct doctrinal significance or conceptual complications, is the best to demonstrate a point.

The skeptics will support the Duckshoot Text (W-H, N-A, modern versions) not because the theories make any sense, or they really agree with any of the ultra-dubious concepts of textual transmission involved, but because those manuscripts are loaded up with lots of built-in errors at which to take aim.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Johnny Skeptic

I told Lee Merrill:

Would you care to reply to those arguments? Lee conveniently didn't.

Why do you believe that God will send you to heaven? Why can't he be an evil God who is masquerading as a good God and plans to send everyone to hell?

reflector

Greetings!

I have been keeping up on this post and I found that this is quite an interesting read in this forum...to see the various points of view presented; even some without the hateful and spiteful words of strife (unfortunately, some that do ). I hope that you don't mind if I would offer up my two cents and let's see what happens... :blush:


The original question, as I recall, asked of the reason for the two different genealogies. I, myself, was troubled for much time since I am sincere when I study the Bible and I seek to conform my life to its doctrines. However, this troubled me since it appeared to be a contradiction. I was concerned about it until I recalled the verse about not giving heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith...(1 Tim. 1:4). At this point, I just came to the conclusion that I would need to trust in God to show me the reason why this issue existed (on the surface).

As I did additional research, I began to wonder whether or not these two genealogies are supposed to be reconciled to each other...After all, these are four different accounts and they have generally been interpreted as being directed at four varying themes. The Gospel of Matthew would show Christ as the Messiah to the Jews whereas Luke would show Christ's relation to the Gentiles.

It would only be natural for an Israelite to ask if the person claiming to be Christ be of the seed of Abraham as well as be in the royal bloodline of David. Thus, Matthew laid out his evidence in the beginning of his writing to support his good news. On the other end of the spectrum, Christ also came to be a light unto the gentiles according to OT prophecies (Isaiah 56:5-8, 60:1-3). Hence, Luke's genealogy shows us His humanity which is necessary for the price of the salvation of mankind through showing his relation to the first man Adam. Considering this point of view, I honestly do not think that these were meant to be reconciled.


Someone asked the question why this genealogy question is useful to Christians…we must come back to establish the context of the issue at hand. Who was the intended audience? Matthew wrote to his Jewish brothers to show that the Messiah has come and it is fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. This is his explanation to those readers who may or may not have become Christians yet.

Luke shows the relationship of the Christ to all of mankind. Again, this is not just for the benefit/edification of a Gentile Christian, but rather for showing that Jesus came and provided salvation for all of the world. Both of these accounts would serve Christians to further edify and provide proof to the unbeliever and further establish the believer’s trust in the foundational truth that Jesus is the Christ and Lord and King.


As for this giving heed to endless genealogies, I can tell you that one thing does give me peace on this topic. I noticed that in the gospels, it would seem that no one questioned his Davidic descent, but rather, they tried to claim that Jesus was illegitimate from a question about his birth. If the Pharisees did not focus on Jesus’ Davidic descent, then we shouldn’t either since they knew better than to attack that which they knew that they could not argue.

As 1 Timothy 1:4 indicates (in the NASB), these endless genealogies “give rise to mere speculation� rather than doing the service which God had originally intended. That word, according to Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, seems to indicate that the use of this word shows that these questions are not from a sincere desire for truth, but rather intent for a clash or argument. The fact that Paul uses the preposition “ek� would indicate that this question would arise “out from the midst of a debatable attitude.�

Looking forward to the discussion and hopeful to it being educational as well as well mannered.

EV

reflector

This would be an inaccurate view of a righteous and holy God. God does not "send" anyone to hell. They are condemned already through their continued contempt for justice and righteousness as well as rejecting the Light of the world. (John 3:18-21)

If He were this way, then the world would have no hope whatsoever and we're all condemned to something anyways. However, the resurrection of Christ gives proof that He has the power to lay down his life as well as the power to take it back up again. Since that has happened, we have a reason to hope.

I hope that this helps!
EV

Doug Shaver

I have no contempt for justice or righteousness.

I don't know what you mean by rejecting the light of the world. If you are trying to claim that I am rejecting Jesus, that is not so. I am rejecting certain things that people say about Jesus because they offer me no good reason to believe them.

Asha'man

First of all, welcome to II reflector. :wave: Hope you have an interesting and challenging stay here.
See, this is where you've gone wrong. It's not atheists who have a contempt for justice, it's Christians.

Justice demands that the guilty are punished, and the innocent are not. Christianity demands that the innocent are punished so that the guilty won't be.

Justice demands that everybody is accountable for their own actions, and nobody is accountable for the actions of others. Christianity demands that everybody is held accountable for the actions of their ancestors, even actions that probably never happened.

The fundamental premise of Christianity is that two wrong actions make things right. My 'sin' against god, and the 'sin' I inherited from my distant ancestors, can somehow be corrected by killing an innocent man. I reject that entire premise as complete and utter nonsense. Any God who would invent such a system is evil, and deserves no worship from me. Any man who would follow such a system is not thinking clearly, and is a danger to himself and society.

JoeWallack

JW:
So "Matthew" and "Luke" provided evidence that Jesus was who they said he was by providing evidence that Jesus was not who they said he was.

In a Sincere effort to help you Avoid speculating on Endless Genealogies:

Who was Jesus' Grand-father?

That "Matthew" and "Luke" disagree here and Subsequent Christianity had no Earthly clue which was right tells me that in addition to "Matthew" and "Luke" not knowing Jesus or even anyone who knew Jesus they also had no access to any relieable record of Jesus' supposed Genealogy.

The Original Gospel, "Mark", doesn't even mention Joseph. Kind of hard to believe though, considering if there was a "Joseph" father of Jesus, who likewise would have been known as "Joseph, son of ?" that no one would remember Who Joseph was son of, like say fer instance, the woman that was married to Joseph, son of? (Hint - the marriage Certificate would have indicated this and been Public information).

Joseph

"Sonny is dead. He's schlepping fishes."

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Johnny Skeptic

Even if there were only Mary's genealogy, how could that possibly benefit Christians?

Chili

At least the'll know that they crucified the right one.

reflector

Hi Doug,

We'll see on the justice/righteousness thing...

If I understand your response correctly, you are saying that you don't reject Jesus, just what people say about Jesus... What are they saying?

EV