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: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-30-2005, 07:56 PM   #31
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by linwood

Ahh, yes.
I do mean "feetfirst" my apologies.
Not if his bungee cord was too long.
Chili is offline  
Old 03-30-2005, 08:41 PM   #32
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by linwood
Anyone know where I can find a copy of Vespaes online?
Yes, it is here. Judge's cite (though it does have a question mark next to it) is wrong.

best,
Peter Kirby
Peter Kirby is online now   Edit/Delete Message
Old 03-30-2005, 09:15 PM   #33
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
Default

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

best,
Peter Kirby
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 is offline  
Old 03-30-2005, 09:23 PM   #34
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
Default Did anyone ahng themselves back then?

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?
judge is offline  
Old 03-30-2005, 09:31 PM   #35
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Superior, CO USA
Posts: 1,553
Default

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Weimer
Actually evidence points to Matthew's geneology being Mary's.

Aram is the first seven; David is the second seven; Uzziah was the third seven; Jechoniah was the fourth seven; Achim was the fifth seven; Christ, if Mary is the sixth six, is the sixth seven.

In order to make the geneology work, ανηÏ? has to be construed as father of Mary, and not husband. Then later Matthew would use the same word for Joseph Mary's husband. This probably indicates a second source working on Matthew, maybe very early on people who did not catch the numerology changed πατηÏ? to ανηÏ? in order to make it work.
This is a huge reach, especially since it requires changing a crucial word and especially especially since maternal bloodlines had absolutely no meaning or significance in Jewish laws of succession. In order to be heir to the throne of David, only the patrilineage mattered. If Jesus wasn't descended from David through his father then he wasn't the Messiah. Matthew, being the most Jewish of all the Gospel authors would have known this. A plain reading shows a bloodline through Joseph and if it wasn't for the conflict with Luke, no one would ever even try to say it was Mary.
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.
Family Man is offline  
Old 03-30-2005, 11:32 PM   #36
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

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):

Quote:
τεξεται δε υιον και καλεσεις το ονομα αυτου ιησουν αυτος γαÏ? σωσει τον λαον αυτου απο των αμαÏ?τιων αυτων
Quote:
ιδου η παÏ?θενος εν γαστÏ?ι εξει και τεξεται υιον και καλεσουσιν το ονομα αυτου εμμανουηλ ο εστιν μεθεÏ?μηνευομενον μεθ ημων ο θεος
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 is offline  
Old 03-30-2005, 11:37 PM   #37
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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 is offline  
Old 03-30-2005, 11:46 PM   #38
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

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.
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 03-31-2005, 02:22 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sarasota, Florida
Posts: 547
Default

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.
linwood is offline  
Old 03-31-2005, 02:31 PM   #40
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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
judge is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:30 PM.

Top

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