FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-13-2013, 02:19 PM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

That would still not explain why some names come out very different from the known pronunciation while others do not, and of course, why the author chose those particular names.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
I wonder why GLuke got some Hebrew names all wrong while others were produced in a normal pronunciation. I assume Josech is YEHOTSEDEK. Maybe HESLI is actually YEHEZKEL. Rhesa and Mahath? Search me......
The names would come from the Septuagint, and would reflect a Koine Greek approximation.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 01-13-2013, 10:10 PM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 9,233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by credoconsolans View Post
Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit/God.

There is no genealogy for the child that goes back to the House of David if he is the son of a god.

Only those trying desperately to make a link to make Jesus the Messiah of the Hebrew Bible try to, ignoring the fact that any link they make then discredits the idea that Jesus was the son of a god.

My fundamentalist friends get around this little discrepancy by claiming Joseph adopted Jesus and by that act, Jesus can be part of Joseph's lineage.

Wonky, I know, but then most of the story is.
One of the early Xtian sects (a variety of Gnosticism if I remember correctly) had the reverse notion--that Jesus became Christ when he was adopted by god later in life. The creature who was nailed to the cross was Jesus, not Christ. Only an empty shell was left to die there.

It's fascinating to read up on the thoughts (and practices) of some of those Xtian groups back at the beginning. Some were almost as strange as the current ones.
Jaybees is offline  
Old 01-14-2013, 10:31 AM   #23
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaybees View Post
One of the early Xtian sects (a variety of Gnosticism if I remember correctly) had the reverse notion--that Jesus became Christ when he was adopted by god later in life. The creature who was nailed to the cross was Jesus, not Christ. Only an empty shell was left to die there.

It's fascinating to read up on the thoughts (and practices) of some of those Xtian groups back at the beginning. Some were almost as strange as the current ones.
You mean like the empty cocoon itself that so called Christians celebrate, which sounds strange enough to me and never mind those 20.000 variations of it, each with a different icing recipe to decorate their cake.
Chili is offline  
Old 01-14-2013, 10:41 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Iceland
Posts: 761
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaybees View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by credoconsolans View Post
Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit/God.

There is no genealogy for the child that goes back to the House of David if he is the son of a god.

Only those trying desperately to make a link to make Jesus the Messiah of the Hebrew Bible try to, ignoring the fact that any link they make then discredits the idea that Jesus was the son of a god.

My fundamentalist friends get around this little discrepancy by claiming Joseph adopted Jesus and by that act, Jesus can be part of Joseph's lineage.

Wonky, I know, but then most of the story is.
One of the early Xtian sects (a variety of Gnosticism if I remember correctly) had the reverse notion--that Jesus became Christ when he was adopted by god later in life. The creature who was nailed to the cross was Jesus, not Christ. Only an empty shell was left to die there.

It's fascinating to read up on the thoughts (and practices) of some of those Xtian groups back at the beginning. Some were almost as strange as the current ones.
I've heard that view being called 'separationism' (I think our friend Bart Ehrman used that in his book "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture").
hjalti is offline  
Old 01-14-2013, 10:44 AM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hjalti View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaybees View Post

One of the early Xtian sects (a variety of Gnosticism if I remember correctly) had the reverse notion--that Jesus became Christ when he was adopted by god later in life. The creature who was nailed to the cross was Jesus, not Christ. Only an empty shell was left to die there.

It's fascinating to read up on the thoughts (and practices) of some of those Xtian groups back at the beginning. Some were almost as strange as the current ones.
I've heard that view being called 'separationism' (I think our friend Bart Ehrman used that in his book "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture").
Yes there were many different views before it was nailed down. many fought over just how to define this divinity.
outhouse is offline  
Old 01-14-2013, 11:01 AM   #26
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjalti View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaybees View Post

One of the early Xtian sects (a variety of Gnosticism if I remember correctly) had the reverse notion--that Jesus became Christ when he was adopted by god later in life. The creature who was nailed to the cross was Jesus, not Christ. Only an empty shell was left to die there.

It's fascinating to read up on the thoughts (and practices) of some of those Xtian groups back at the beginning. Some were almost as strange as the current ones.
I've heard that view being called 'separationism' (I think our friend Bart Ehrman used that in his book "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture").
Yes there were many different views before it was nailed down. many fought over just how to define this divinity.
There is no divinity to define in the divine or the supernatural would still need to be explored in heaven, and that is precisely why the lineage was exposed so it may be raised and heaven can just 'be' the end in sight.
Chili is offline  
Old 01-14-2013, 07:50 PM   #27
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chili View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjalti View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaybees View Post

One of the early Xtian sects (a variety of Gnosticism if I remember correctly) had the reverse notion--that Jesus became Christ when he was adopted by god later in life. The creature who was nailed to the cross was Jesus, not Christ. Only an empty shell was left to die there.

It's fascinating to read up on the thoughts (and practices) of some of those Xtian groups back at the beginning. Some were almost as strange as the current ones.
I've heard that view being called 'separationism' (I think our friend Bart Ehrman used that in his book "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture").
Yes there were many different views before it was nailed down. many fought over just how to define this divinity.
There is no divinity to define in the divine or the supernatural would still need to be explored in heaven, and that is precisely why the lineage was exposed so it may be raised and heaven can just 'be' the end in sight.
In other words, unity and affirmity, if there is such a word, instead of controversy is what the divine is all about or omniscience would not be omniscient and knowledge be a lie.
Chili is offline  
Old 01-18-2013, 11:27 AM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default I Dream of Genealogy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkingfan View Post
This has probably been brought up before, but are the following comments about the geneology of Jesus in Matthew and Luke valid? (This person is saying there is no contradiction in the geneologies):

Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph to Abraham to show that Jesus was Jewish while Luke's genealogy goes back to Adam, showing that Jesus is related to all mankind. (H)Eli may have been Mary's father and Joseph's father-in-law. Luke wanted to be as exact as he could in his writing, so he may have gotten the genealogy directly from Mary. This would make sense because Luke gave women prominence in his book compared to the other gospels. Different writers showing different sides of the same coin.


My initial assertion (for your reference):
Matthew 1:6 traces the lineage of Jesus through David’s son, Solomon. Luke 3:23-31 traces the lineage of Jesus through David’s other son, Nathan. Matthew 1:16 says that Jacob was Joseph’s father. Luke 3:23 states that Heli was Joseph’s father. Matthew 1:17 states that there were twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus. Luke 3:23-38 says there were fourty-three.
JW:
I've inventoried the contradiction of Jesus' paternal grandfathers at ErrancyWiki here:

Matthew 1:16

Quote:
"Matthew" Says Jesus' Paternal Grandfather was Jacob. "Luke" Says Jesus' Paternal Grandfather Was Heli
No one has offered a defense. At ErrancyWiki I require all posts to include at least one of the following 3 attributes:
1) Simple

2) Logical

3) Support from the Text
The attempted defense that Heli is Jesus' maternal grandfather is not logical or supported by the Text but it is simple, so I would allow it. An outline of points against this attempted defense from my article would be:

1) The text explicitly indicates that Joseph is biologically from Heli ("of Heli") and the English equivalent is "son of":

http://biblos.com/luke/3-23.htm

2501 [e] Iōsēph Ἰωσήφ of Joseph, N
3588 [e] tou τοῦ Art-GMS
2242 [e] Ēli Ἠλὶ* of Heli, N

Note that the "G" of GMS means the Genitive case as in "came from" (biological). This is a somewhat stronger indication of biological than the English "son". Any defense has to undo or at least try to undo this explicit statement.

2) You would have to have quality and quantity of implications to overturn an explicit statement but the quality implications all support the explicit:

3) The primary source for both is "Mark" which never names Joseph (no expectation of reliable source for Jesus' grandfather).

4) This primary source says Jesus had a brother "Joseph" which makes it doubtful that Jesus also had a father Joseph.

5) "Matthew" looks contrived as "Joseph son of Jacob" is the same as a famous Jewish Bible story.

6) Authority sees the contradiction here.

7) All Patristic/Christian scholarship assumed "Luke" gave Joseph's father until relatively recent times.

8) There are many other errors in the genealogies (no expectation of reliable source for Jesus' grandfather).

9) Origen confesses to us that in his time the Greek manuscripts were filled with errors regarding Hebrew names.


Joseph

BIRTH, n. The first and direst of all disasters. As to the nature of it there appears to be no uniformity. Castor and Pollux were born from the egg. Pallas came out of a skull. Galatea was once a block of stone. Peresilis, who wrote in the tenth century, avers that he grew up out of the ground where a priest had spilled holy water. It is known that Arimaxus was derived from a hole in the earth, made by a stroke of lightning. Leucomedon was the son of a cavern in Mount Aetna, and I have myself seen a man come out of a wine cellar.

ErrancyWiki
JoeWallack is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:27 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.