Chili

Not if his bungee cord was too long.

Peter Kirby

Yes, it is here. Judge's cite (though it does have a question mark next to it) is wrong.

best,
Peter Kirby

judge

Right you are I will try to find the correct reference (if such exists).

It is an interesting theory in that by taking this one word figuratively many other contradcitions are also solved, such as various references to 11 and 12 disciples after this both in the other gospels and pauls letter to Corinth.

This is why reading matthew 1:16 as father is compelling as well, the other contradictions (number of generations, identity of josephs father) are also solved by one word.

This doesn't make either of these correct but it does add some weight I think.

judge

I wonder if any one can provide a reference for an individual ever killing themselves by "hanging" in the middle east around the forst century?

Does any one know the history of "hanging" as we know it in recent times?

Family Man

Thanks, Diogenes, this is a perfect example of what I mean. In order to "harmonize", we have to make a supposition so large that it would never be acceptable in any context other than religion. Throw in the fact the Jesus lived a in patriarchal society where the bloodline of the mother is never considered -- there is no comparable genealogy anywhere else in the Bible through the mother -- and there is no good reason to accept such strange reasoning.

Apologetics is nothing more than reverse engineering -- it is void of any reasonable content and not worth taking seriously.

Chris Weimer

Diogenes, another interesting thought came across my mind this afternoon before work, so I apologize for not getting to it earlier. Matthew's beginning appears to be two documents mixed together. Whether this was Matthew's original intent or not can be debated, but I don't think that it was his first version. Compare these two verses (and yes, the are contradictions, no apologizing needed):

I'm still checking on a certain stylistic feature of Matthew, particularly the υπο + genitive, but if my hunches are right, the second verse was redacted giving the apparent contradiction of which name to call him. Both use the phrase το ονομα αυτου "the name of him" but he is only called Jesus in Matthew. That, along with how the verse 22 just seems to stick out of place anyways makes me think it was not original. I'll get back to you when I'm finished running through Matthew to see the frequency of this phrase. But you'll have to excuse me for tonight as I just returned from work and am tired.

Chris Weimer

I'm sorry that you feel that I'm apologizing for the text, I wasn't aware that you were quite the Matthean scholar. In fact, the emphasis on Mary was very early, and his female disciples in general, along with the special significance of Luke's anunciation to Mary and Mary alone, it's absurd to state that the patriarchal society would exlude this aspect. Also, Matthew includes other women as well, Uriah, Ruth, Thamar, and Rachab, which surely is an indication of some kind of significance.

Chris Weimer

And while you're at it, go ahead and tell us why Matthew says that there are fourteen generations from the exile to Babylon to Christ while counting normally would only produce thirteen. If you want to discuss the absurdity of it, by all means, it's a logical contradiction that Jesus can be both the son of God and of David, but if that's what Matthew thought then you have to accurately represent the text. In fact, the whole notion that he was the son of God and not of Joseph entirely nullifies your arguement about patristic lineage.

linwood

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby
Yes, it is here. Judge's cite (though it does have a question mark next to it) is wrong.

Thank you very much Peter.
You`ve no idea how helpful that was in clearing up a months old debate I`ve had going back and forth.

Originally Posted by Judge
It is an interesting theory in that by taking this one word figuratively many other contradcitions are also solved, such as various references to 11 and 12 disciples after this both in the other gospels and pauls letter to Corinth.

It is interesting and valid oftne enough.
Reading Dennis Mckinsey and his refutation of Biblical inerrancy can show how helpful using a single word figuratively can be.
However it would seem to me there would have to be some reason within the text to take a word figuratvely or literally for that matter.

I wouldn`t suggest arbitrarily changing the intended meaning for a word or phrase.

judge

Og course if the Joseph in verse 16 is marys father rather than her husband then we get 14 generations.
See my link to the Aramaic version of Matthew