abospaum

Unbeliever,

What about things such as:

Jesus was a descendant of Jeconiah and Jeconiah's seed was cursed so therefore none of his seed would sit on the throne of David.

Hebrews also contradicts Leviticus- Lev 16 tells about the scapegoat and how the sins would be put on the scapegoat. Hebs says that a goat could not take the sins of man.

What are the 10 commandments- Does Jesus know them?

The covenant in the OT was forever- but fulfilled in the NT.

Amos

If you look at the gospels as individual pieces they sometimes contradict each other but if you look at them as four different perspectives of the same event they will compliment each other, and this, I think, is exactly the reason why the differences are given.

So here with the lineage, Matthew is religious and therefore recorded, Mark was the pagan view and does not even know that there is a lineage, Luke was inspired because he writes from within the mind of Joseph and John shows us how Luke could have known because the entire lineage was present at the wedding in Cana.

Woman from Gen.1 is called Mary who gave birth to 'the child within' and because of that she now becomes the bride of the Lamb (Rev.21:9). Mary remains subservient to Jesus because she must allow the child to become the father of man in his own way and not just remaining son of man (child of God) until he dies nonetheless. In Catholic theology it is not until after Ascention that Mary is Assumed into heaven and subsequently crowned queen of heaven and earth (also each in our own way).

It is interesting to note that just after the wedding in Cana Jesus leaves religion behind with the "Cleansing of the Temple" to indicate that religion must serve us as a means to the end and thus salvation becomes the end of religious dedication and obligation. This concept is the reason why Catholicism does not cater to born again movements and is also why the term "Christian religion" is really a contradiction in itself.

I call John the Catholic Gospel because protestants read this just opposite as they tend to cling to religion and religious obligation for the rest of their lifes lest they lose their salvation etc.

So would it be fair to say that the four gosples are really a four dimensional description of the same event?

Amos

Much more important in the lineage difference is the significance of the difference between Matthew and Luke.

Matthew was recorded and is given to us prior to the birth of Jesus and Luke comes to us after his birth and not until he had found favor with God.

Luke says that Jesus was about thirthy (I think he was older then that) when he began his work as "the [fistborn] son of Joseph" here reborn and now ready to reform his life (we call this metanoia and this would also explain the missing infant narrative of Jesus).

That Jesus was older comes from John wherein the second wine that Jesus made makes reference to the second half of life (our evolutionary period) which does not begin until we get into the period we call "meno-pauze" (or andropauze today, I guess). The 6 stone jars signify the mid-point of life which is between involution and evolution and therefore is the darkest point of life and this is the night that Christ was born (midnight-midwinter-midlife equals 666 and from 666 we must journey to 888 which is possible only if epiphany follows the event which in turn depends on our degree of purity in relation to God).

Yuri Kuchinsky

Weird...



Yuri.

Amos

Matthew 1:1. "A family record of Jesus Christ, son of David, etc."

Matthew 1:18. "Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about . . ."

In Luke no introduction of Jesus lineage is made, Jesus was born in Luke 2:6, was baptised and the HS descended upon him in Luke 3:22 and in 3:23 the lineage is given.

I don't believe that these are accidents but they distinctions made for our benefit.

judge

Thanks Yuri.

Not a mirror reflection

The Old Syriac have no direct relationship to the peshitta.

The peshitta manuscripts are all the same not because they were standardised but because they are all the same text copied word for word.

Variation would be the result of translation. Where the peshitta is ambiguous we find varaition in the translations.

Uniformity could be the result of standardisation OR it might just be the mark of the original.

JoeWallack

JW:
There are far more problems in the Genealogies than is commonly discussed in Polemics. Here is a sampling of "difficulties" based on either the quantity of manuscripts or quality. Keep in mind that there are exponentially more variations if you consider the differences in ALL manuscripts:


Matthew 1: (KJV)
"4 And Aram begat Aminadab"
According to I Chronicles 2:10 it was Ram that begat Aminadab, not Aram. The earliest extant Greek manuscripts have the Greek equivalent of the English "Aram" for Matthew 1:4. (so presumably the KJV is correctly translating Matthew's error). The NIV has changed "Aram" to "Ram" correcting Matthew's error. The LXX states that Aram begat Aminadab so it's likely that Matthew made his error by simply copying from the LXX as he apparently was not fluent in Hebrew and so could not check the original Hebrew language. Some Bible scholars do theorize that the LXX was changed in some places to conform to the Gospels and that this is one of those instances. In any case Matthew's apparent use of "Aram" does not agree with any known Hebrew
text and in the absence of any evidence that the Hebrew use of "Ram" was the result of any change would be an error by Matthew.

Matthew 1: (KJV)
"5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab"
The only Rachab mentioned in the Tanakh was the Rachab of the
Conquest who lived about two hundred years before Boaz. Every
significant Church Father who commented on Matthew 1:5 assumed that Matthew was referring to the Rachab of the Conquest.

Matthew 1: (KJV)
"7Abia begat Asa; :8 And Asa begat Josaphat"
Generally, the oldest extant Greek manuscripts such as the Sinaitic and Vatican codices have the Greek equivalent of the English "Asaph" instead of "Asa" who according to the Tanakh should be in this location. The NASB has a footnote for Matthew 1:7 indicating that the Greek word was the equivalent of the English "Asaph". Most of the older Greek manuscripts indicating "Asaph" were unknown to the translators of the KJV.

Matthew 1: (KJV)
"8 Joram begat Ozias"
According to I Chronicles 3:11 (JPS), Joram begat Ahaziah so Matthew has omitted Ahaziah from his genealogy.

Matthew 1: (KJV)
"8 Joram begat Ozias"
According to I Chronicles 3:11 (JPS), Joram begat Ahaziah who begat Joash so Matthew has also omitted Joash from his genealogy.

Matthew 1: (KJV)
"8 Joram begat Ozias"
According to I Chronicles 3:11 (JPS), Joram begat Ahaziah who begat Joash who begat Amaziah so Matthew has also omitted Amaziah from his genealogy.

Matthew 1: (KJV)
"10 Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias"
Generally, the oldest extant Greek manuscripts such as the Sinaitic and Vatican codices have the Greek equivalent of the English "Amos" instead of "Amon" who according to the Tanakh should be in this location. The NASB has a footnote for Matthew 1:10 indicating that the Greek word was the equivalent of the English "Amos". Most of the older Greek manuscripts indicating "Amos" were unknown to the translators of the KJV.

Matthew 1: (KJV)
"11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:"
According to I Chronicles 3:15 (JPS), Josiah (Josias in KJV) begat
Jehoiakim who begat Jeconiah (Jechonias in KJV) so Matthew has
omitted Jehoiakim from his genealogy.

Matthew 1: (KJV)
"11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:"
According to the Tanakh Jechonias only had one brother.

Matthew 1: (KJV)
"13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim"
According to the Tanakh (JPS), I Chronicles, 3:19-20, Abiud was not one of the eight children of Zerubbabel ("Zorobabel" in KJV).

Matthew 1: (KJV)
"17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen
generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations"
Matthew has omitted four generations from his genealogy between David and the Babylonian exile. Even without them he still has fifteen chronological names.

Matthew 1: (KJV)
"17 and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations."
Almost 600 years separate the birth of Shealtiel from the birth of
Jesus resulting in an average of 46 years per generation. This
average is contradicted by all known averages for this period outside of Matthew. Luke's average would be 27 years and Josephus' average would be 25 years.

Luke 3: (KJV)
23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"
Compare to Matthew 1: (KJV)
16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
The father of Joseph (not sure what the correct term is for the
father of the husband of the wife who virgin birthed you as I don't believe that Amy Vanderbilt ever addresses this issue) according to "Luke" is Heli and according to "Matthew" is Jacob. Just going by names "Matthew" seems to have picked names based on their significance and order in the Tanakh. Jacob was the father of Joseph who had Egyptian children and "Jesus" is remarkably similar in sound to the Egyptian "Iusa" which means "the ever coming one". Of course this is just rampant speculation on my part.

Luke 3: (KJV)
27 "Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel,"
Luke has 20 generations from Zerubbabel to Jesus (it goes without saying that some of these generations are missing in some manuscripts) while Matthew has 11. As mentioned previously, for the time period covered Luke's number of generations is more plausible. Most of the names Luke lists for this period are unknown outside of Luke. Where Luke got them, God knows.

Luke 3: (KJV)
27 "Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,"
Compare to Matthew 1: (KJV)
12 "And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat
Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;"
According to Luke Neri was the father of Salathiel while according to Matthew and the Masoretic text Jeconiah was the father of Salathiel.

Luke 3: (KJV)
31 "Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,"
Compare to Matthew 1: (KJV)
6 "And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;" According to Luke Jesus was descended through Nathan while according to Matthew Jesus was descended through Solomon.

Luke 3: (KJV)
32 "Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,"
The earliest extant manuscripts have "Sala" which is different
than "Salmon" from the Tanakh. A majority of modern Christian
translations have mistranslated "Sala" as "Salmon" to make it agree to the name from the Tanakh.

Luke 3: (KJV)
33 "Which was the son of Aminadab"
The earliest extant manuscripts lack Aminadab and there is tremendous variation in names at this point in manuscripts indicating a likely omission in the original.

Luke 3: (KJV)
33 "Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom"
The textual evidence is that "Aram" above should be "Arni"
so "Matthew" has "Aram" as the son of Hezron (Esrom) and "Luke" has "Arni". Aram by any other name.

Luke 3: (KJV)
37 "Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad"
There is no "Cainan" in the related genealogy of either the Masoretic text or Josephus' listing. "Cainan" is in most Greek (Christian) translations of the Tanakh but Augustine is the first Church Father to mention the name so it's likely that "Cainan" was added to Greek translations because it was in "Luke".

If I was a nitpicking type of guy I'd list a lot more problems of a
more subtle nature.


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.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...hristian_Bible

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abdulreis/myhomepage/

Doctor X

One has to remain in the text in order to discuss the context of the text.

One could just as easily declare that the proper interpretation of Shakespeare gives "Romeo and Julien"--the great homoerotic exploration--based on "difference in vision" and "breadth of context" and prove just as wrong.

Ipse dixit and, unfortunately given the information above, wrong.

On the contrary, I have compared both genealogies in their entirety.

I am fortunately not confined by this self-limited perspective. This is an argument for ignorance, an argument for defeat. Rather than confront the texts and consider what they actually say and mean--in contradistinction than what one wants them to mean--we are apparently to bury our heads in the sand and believe "we cannot possibly know."

On the contrary, what we can know proves rather substantial--such as that the genealogies contradict one another.

Unfortunately, wanting to see something does not mean that something is actually there to be seen. Case in point:

I must admit I find being born twice fourteen years appart from two unreconcilable lineages a most singular conception of "compliment."

However, if one can believe that Judas hung himself and exploded, anything, no matter how ridiculous, is possible.

--J.D.

Amos

Sure he can. Judas stood for Judaism and if given enough rope it will hang many a Jew and this only means that it is a great religion that is able to serve as a means to the end. So, to the insider the very thing that is trusted most will betray you and to the outsider it seems to blow up in their face. The outsider would not know that better times are ahead for the ex Jew or he would not be an outsider.

Judas must be annihilated because he cannot be recalled into the upper room or there would be temples in the New Jerusalam. In other words, Jews can go to heaven but only as ex-Jew because there is not room for Judaism in heaven (Rev.21:22).

In case you missed it, to be in heaven is to become resident in the upper room (subconscious mind). An identity switch is required for this and if you wish to read about one go to Julius Caesar III,i where Mark Anthony makes the pivotal speach in lines182-210.

Doctor X

One may very well wish to build a castle in the air, but he cannot expect others to live in it.

Should a participant wish to consider the texts he knows where to find me.

--J.D.