Freethought & Rationalism Archive

thentian · 07-16-2008, 10:46 AM

Quote:

In my original post I made it absolutely clear without a doubt that the genealogy given in the gospels were never questioned by the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' time. They would have questioned it if there were any reason to do so. Why do you question it?

Huh? The Jewish leaders knew what Matthew/Luke wrote?

aa5874 · 07-16-2008, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaOU812

I have already given everyone on this thread Luke 3.23-38 to read. The name Mary is just not in the genealogy.

The passages have demonstrated that your claim is bogus.

You must have fabricated your claim that Luke uses Mary's ancestry.

Okay. I have to stop for a minute to keep my head from exploding. Let me rest. Leave me be.

A perfect opportunity to get a new one. :banghead:

WVIncagold · 07-16-2008, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVIncagold

not really i concede that all those creatures fly, well except the ostrich so that kind of takes the whole flying part out of the scripture to interpret and blows your argument out of the water( so remind me who is clinging to a predetermined conclusion). but ignoring the large flightless bird, what was discussed was all birds. they have similar attributes. beaks, feathers, wings, and behaviors which are observable and we attribute to being bird like, such as building nest and laying eggs. the bat has none of these same characteristics. In fact it even has talons on its fingers and a membrane and gives birth to live young, has anyone ever reported a bat egg? The only way to confuse the bat with a bird is never ever observing one up close, which is quite possible but doubtful. I have contrived nothing. I am looking at what is stated and drawing a conclusion on those statements in the scripture. I agree the KJV is a terrible document but it is unlike the Holy Qu'ran which is only true word of God correct? Its believers say it is the only uncorrupted word of god so you must believe it is correct. Anyways regardless a reasoned approach would be to see the inconsistency, i recognized it as a child. I did not use confirmation bias to formulate my opinion. I looked at what can only be the prattling of a very naive and uneducated sheep herder and see it is a very large inconsistency in a book that is supposed to reveal the true knowledge of the universe.

I really don't understand the nature of your objection. The Bible mentions birds with bats. Does that mean that the Bible assumes they are the same? Mammels and all that? The more accurate translation not being birds but flying creatures blows the ostrich right out of the water. Or sand. The ostrich doesn't fly. I get it. It has feathers not fur. Science. The chicken and the turkey doesn't fly. But they are birds. It is funny how science minded skeptics will cling doggedly to facts without question. Just so long as it is in the name of science.

Wait [doofus says] they can't be birds because they can't fly.

Get over it.

hey your the one arguing the point. I said its an inconsistency. thats it. the passage is talking about birds then at the end includes the bat. thats like describing the ford model lineup and including at the end including a triumph motorcycle. It does not make a whole lot of sense. it is and inconstancy.
sorry you were unable to make a point in your objection. Nothing for me to "get over" far as i am concerned. Oh and actually wild turkeys do fly, just not well same with wild chickens, only through evolutionary engineering have we as humans engineered them to provide more meat and thereby rendering them to heavy to fly. Ever go Turkey hunting? I do and the roost in trees. last time a looked they were not climbing up there limb by limb although it does make for a very funny picture in my head.
Also examine this sentence and maybe you might want to rephrase it

Quote:

It is funny how science minded skeptics will cling doggedly to facts without question.

If they are facts why would you ignore something if it is a fact? is that because theist make up shit and ignore facts as long as it is in the name of myth religion?

thentian · 07-16-2008, 01:27 PM

DLH didn't invent the Mary/Heli theory, if anyone though so. It is mentioned both in Wikipedia and the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here's a bit from the former:

Quote:

The confusion over the name of Joseph’s father encouraged explanations to reconcile the two genealogies. One suggestion [14] assigns Luke's genealogy to Jesus's mother Mary, and not to his father Joseph at all. So Jacob would be the father of Joseph, and Heli the father of Mary. Therefore, no contradiction.

The use of the term 'son' was often used in the sense of a 'descendant' or a head of a household's relative living under the same roof. An example of this in the Hebrew Bible would be Manasseh, who was described in Numbers 32:41, Deuteronomy 3:14 and 1st Kings 4:13 as the 'son' of Jair. However, it is revealed in 1st Chronicles 2:21-23 and 7:14-15 that he is actually the distant son-in-law of Jair. Thus calling Jesus the 'son of Joseph' could be interpreted to mean Jesus was a member of Joseph's household without being a biological son.

Assuming a virgin birth through Mary, Jesus's patrilinear genealogy could follow Mary's father. (A similar legal scenario was in place for the ancient concubines whose children did not inherit their father's property, but instead inherited property from their mother's father.)

The suggestion focuses on the language of Luke's Greek text. Luke adds a phrase that today would be considered a parenthetical comment. Luke 3:23 says literally: "And Jesus himself was ... a son (being thought) of Joseph of Heli" (Greek: και αυτος ην ιησους ... υιος ως ενομιζετο ιωσηφ του ηλι). The plain meaning of the text is usually understood as communicating the notion that Jesus was believed to be the son of Joseph but was actually the product of virgin birth. The suggestion simply expands the parenthesis to literally comment Joseph out of the genealogy altogether. "And Jesus himself was ... a son (being thought of Joseph) of Heli". In other words, people believed Jesus was the son of Joseph, but really he was the son of Mary's father Heli. Thus Joseph would be irrelevant to this genealogy.

The suggestion accepts the accuracy of the exact wording of the biblical text, it resolves an apparent contradiction between two biblical texts, and it expands the reputation of Jesus's mother Mary by explicating her aristocratic origins all the way back to King David.

Nevertheless, the genealogy does not actually mention Mary: making it her genealogy is therefore a "daring" interpretation. More problematically, the Early Christians preserve no tradition identifying Luke's genealogy as Mary's. It was not until the 15th century AD, when Annius of Viterbo first suggested this reassignment of the genealogy to Mary, with it gaining popularity only in the following centuries since. Most scholars "safely" discount the possibility that the genealogy belongs to Mary.

So there is at least one example of "son" being used for "son-in-law", if Wikipedia is to be trusted, but "most scholars" discount the possibility that the genealogy belongs to Mary.

The Catholic Encyclopedia also mentions the theory, but discounts it in favor their own.

Cheers!

Reason · 07-16-2008, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Given enough time and effort, a person can rationalize away any contradiction or inaccuracy in the Bible. It is just that the harmonizations begin to sound implausible after awhile. Perhaps it is just the difference in the way that skeptics and believers think.

A more interesting question is:
How did God inspire the writings? Did he dictate verbally? Did the Biblical authors have visions? Did they begin writing, and intuitively know what to write? How does Divine Inspiration work?

Perhaps it is a derivation of "courting the Muse"?

In that case, I'll take a good modern fiction writer over any of the "inspired" religious writings. Hell, I'll take Shakespeare.

Cege · 07-16-2008, 04:30 PM

Quote:

The confusion over the name of Joseph’s father encouraged explanations to reconcile the two genealogies. One suggestion [14] assigns Luke's genealogy to Jesus's mother Mary, and not to his father Joseph at all. So Jacob would be the father of Joseph, and Heli the father of Mary. Therefore, no contradiction.

The use of the term 'son' was often used in the sense of a 'descendant' or a head of a household's relative living under the same roof. An example of this in the Hebrew Bible would be Manasseh, who was described in Numbers 32:41, Deuteronomy 3:14 and 1st Kings 4:13 as the 'son' of Jair. However, it is revealed in 1st Chronicles 2:21-23 and 7:14-15 that he is actually the distant son-in-law of Jair. Thus calling Jesus the 'son of Joseph' could be interpreted to mean Jesus was a member of Joseph's household without being a biological son.

I'm trying hard to understand this argument, but not having much success so far. These quotes are from the NIV:

Numbers 32:41 Jair, a descendant of Manasseh, captured their settlements and called them Havvoth Jair.

Deuteronomy 3:14 Jair, a descendant of Manasseh, took the whole region of Argob as far as the border of the Geshurites and the Maacathites; it was named after him, so that to this day Bashan is called Havvoth Jair.

1 Kings 4:13 Ben-Geber—in Ramoth Gilead (the settlements of Jair son of Manasseh in Gilead were his, as well as the district of Argob in Bashan and its sixty large walled cities with bronze gate bars

Jair is described as a descendent of Manasseh. Mannesseh is not described as the 'son of Jair".

1 Chronicles 2:21-23 Later, Hezron lay with the daughter of Makir the father of Gilead (he had married her when he was sixty years old), and she bore him Segub. Segub was the father of Jair, who controlled twenty-three towns in Gilead. (But Geshur and Aram captured Havvoth Jair, as well as Kenath with its surrounding settlements—sixty towns.) All these were descendants of Makir the father of Gilead.

1 Chronicles 7:14-15 The descendants of Manasseh:
Asriel was his descendant through his Aramean concubine. She gave birth to Makir the father of Gilead. Makir took a wife from among the Huppites and Shuppites. His sister's name was Maacah.
Another descendant was named Zelophehad, who had only daughters.

How does Chronicles describe Mannesseh "the distant son-in-law" of Jair?

What is a "distant son-in-law", anyways?

Cege · 07-16-2008, 04:57 PM

Just recently, I've been discussing the two genealogies of Jesus with my Sunday School teacher who is a PhD dean at a local Christian college.

One thing that came up in those email discussions is that the word translated "son" from the Greek huios in Luke 3 only appears once in the geneaology list.

From Young's Literal Translation:

23And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph,

24the [son] of Eli, the [son] of Matthat, the [son] of Levi, the [son] of Melchi, the [son] of Janna, the [son] of Joseph,...

...37the [son] of Methuselah, the [son] of Enoch, the [son] of Jared, the [son] of Mahalaleel,

38the [son] of Cainan, the [son] of Enos, the [son] of Seth, the [son] of Adam, the [son] of God.

The word "son", shown in in brackets throughout the entire list, doesn't actually appear in the Greek text, except in v23. It appears to be implied that the same relationship continues throughout the list.

If huios is meant to mean son-in-law instead of son, then Jesus is presented as the son-in-law of Joseph, and (ultimately) Adam as the son-in-law of God.

Also, pentheros is the Greek word for "son-in-law" but it's not used to describe Joseph's relationship to Heli in Luke's geneaology, as some might wish it had been.

thentian · 07-16-2008, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

Quote:

The confusion over the name of Joseph’s father encouraged explanations to reconcile the two genealogies. One suggestion [14] assigns Luke's genealogy to Jesus's mother Mary, and not to his father Joseph at all. So Jacob would be the father of Joseph, and Heli the father of Mary. Therefore, no contradiction.

The use of the term 'son' was often used in the sense of a 'descendant' or a head of a household's relative living under the same roof. An example of this in the Hebrew Bible would be Manasseh, who was described in Numbers 32:41, Deuteronomy 3:14 and 1st Kings 4:13 as the 'son' of Jair. However, it is revealed in 1st Chronicles 2:21-23 and 7:14-15 that he is actually the distant son-in-law of Jair. Thus calling Jesus the 'son of Joseph' could be interpreted to mean Jesus was a member of Joseph's household without being a biological son.

I'm trying hard to understand this argument, but not having much success so far. These quotes are from the NIV:

Numbers 32:41 Jair, a descendant of Manasseh, captured their settlements and called them Havvoth Jair.

Deuteronomy 3:14 Jair, a descendant of Manasseh, took the whole region of Argob as far as the border of the Geshurites and the Maacathites; it was named after him, so that to this day Bashan is called Havvoth Jair.

1 Kings 4:13 Ben-Geber—in Ramoth Gilead (the settlements of Jair son of Manasseh in Gilead were his, as well as the district of Argob in Bashan and its sixty large walled cities with bronze gate bars

Jair is described as a descendent of Manasseh. Mannesseh is not described as the 'son of Jair".

1 Chronicles 2:21-23 Later, Hezron lay with the daughter of Makir the father of Gilead (he had married her when he was sixty years old), and she bore him Segub. Segub was the father of Jair, who controlled twenty-three towns in Gilead. (But Geshur and Aram captured Havvoth Jair, as well as Kenath with its surrounding settlements—sixty towns.) All these were descendants of Makir the father of Gilead.

1 Chronicles 7:14-15 The descendants of Manasseh:
Asriel was his descendant through his Aramean concubine. She gave birth to Makir the father of Gilead. Makir took a wife from among the Huppites and Shuppites. His sister's name was Maacah.
Another descendant was named Zelophehad, who had only daughters.

How does Chronicles describe Mannesseh "the distant son-in-law" of Jair?

What is a "distant son-in-law", anyways?

I, too, am having a hard time with it!

So far it looks like the word being used in hebrew is "ben":

Quote:

1121. ben (bane)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From banah; a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., (like 'ab, 'ach, etc.)) -- + afflicted, age, (Ahoh-) (Ammon-) (Hachmon-) (Lev-)ite, (anoint-)ed one, appointed to, (+) arrow, (Assyr-) (Babylon-) (Egypt-) (Grec-)ian, one born, bough, branch, breed, + (young) bullock, + (young) calf, X came up in, child, colt, X common, X corn, daughter, X of first, + firstborn, foal, + very fruitful, + postage, X in, + kid, + lamb, (+) man, meet, + mighty, + nephew, old, (+) people, + rebel, + robber, X servant born, X soldier, son, + spark, + steward, + stranger, X surely, them of, + tumultuous one, + valiant(-est), whelp, worthy, young (one), youth.

The same word is used in the other places I checked in Numbers (used with "A son of B"), so it looks like it is indeed used to describe both "son" and more distant relationships. I'm no expert, though, so those who translated it with "descendant" may well have had a good reason to do so that I don't know about. Maybe there are grammatical clues or something?

Chronicles says Segub was the father of Jair, so Manasseh cannot also have been the father.

I'm still not sure how much any of that helps to substantiate the claim. Didn't Luke write it in greek? And even if there was no way to differentiate between "son" and "son-in-law", there is nothing actually pointing towards the Mary/Heli connection. Except of course the need for there to be no contradictions in the bible...

Cheers!

Cege · 07-16-2008, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

I'm still not sure how much any of that helps to substantiate the claim. Didn't Luke write it in greek? And even if there was no way to differentiate between "son" and "son-in-law", there is nothing actually pointing towards the Mary/Heli connection. Except of course the need for there to be no contradictions in the bible...

There's also the need to connect Jesus as a descendent of the House of David, specifically through Solomon.

If there was a virgin birth, then Joseph could contribute nothing to Jesus' connection to Davidic ancestry. The human/flesh connection to David's ancestry could only be through Jesus' mother, yet no geneaology connected to Mary is given by the gospel writers, even though it would have been logical for those writers to do so.

Apparently there was a very easy way to differentiate between "son" and "son-in-law" by using pentheros which meant "son-in-law" rather than huios which meant "son".

I'm no expert, either. I just try to comprehend what I can research.

thentian · 07-16-2008, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

Just recently, I've been discussing the two genealogies of Jesus with my Sunday School teacher who is a PhD dean at a local Christian college.

One thing that came up in those email discussions is that the word translated "son" from the Greek huios in Luke 3 only appears once in the geneaology list.

From Young's Literal Translation:

23And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph,

24the [son] of Eli, the [son] of Matthat, the [son] of Levi, the [son] of Melchi, the [son] of Janna, the [son] of Joseph,...

...37the [son] of Methuselah, the [son] of Enoch, the [son] of Jared, the [son] of Mahalaleel,

38the [son] of Cainan, the [son] of Enos, the [son] of Seth, the [son] of Adam, the [son] of God.

The word "son", shown in in brackets throughout the entire list, doesn't actually appear in the Greek text, except in v23. It appears to be implied that the same relationship continues throughout the list.

If huios is meant to mean son-in-law instead of son, then Jesus is presented as the son-in-law of Joseph, and (ultimately) Adam as the son-in-law of God.

Also, pentheros is the Greek word for "son-in-law" but it's not used to describe Joseph's relationship to Heli in Luke's geneaology, as some might wish it had been.

Your sunday school teacher is correct!

Well that's it for that theory, IMO!

Cheers!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-16-2008, 04:57 PM	#187
Cege Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: 36078 Posts: 849	Just recently, I've been discussing the two genealogies of Jesus with my Sunday School teacher who is a PhD dean at a local Christian college. One thing that came up in those email discussions is that the word translated "son" from the Greek huios in Luke 3 only appears once in the geneaology list. From Young's Literal Translation: 23And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph, 24the [son] of Eli, the [son] of Matthat, the [son] of Levi, the [son] of Melchi, the [son] of Janna, the [son] of Joseph,... ...37the [son] of Methuselah, the [son] of Enoch, the [son] of Jared, the [son] of Mahalaleel, 38the [son] of Cainan, the [son] of Enos, the [son] of Seth, the [son] of Adam, the [son] of God. The word "son", shown in in brackets throughout the entire list, doesn't actually appear in the Greek text, except in v23. It appears to be implied that the same relationship continues throughout the list. If huios is meant to mean son-in-law instead of son, then Jesus is presented as the son-in-law of Joseph, and (ultimately) Adam as the son-in-law of God. Also, pentheros is the Greek word for "son-in-law" but it's not used to describe Joseph's relationship to Heli in Luke's geneaology, as some might wish it had been.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.