Doctor X

Jack the Bodiless:

Indeed.

Not that later texts did not try to play with the genealogies to make them "fit."

--J.D.

Amos

Matthew was recorded and goes from Abraham to Joseph while Luke was inspired and is given to us after the descend of the HS upon Jesus. Jesus was born from Mary who was the undefiled womb of Joseph and therefore it was "supposed" that Jesus was the son of Joseph (v.23).

Luke goes back "to Adam to God" to create a new religion that was isolated from Judaism while sharing the same Genesis. This would be much the same as grafted branches share the same trunk and is why Catholics are sometimes called the "grafted branches."

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello?

I thought the question was which was earlier, the Peshitta or the Old Syriac. But none of this is in the least relevant...

Are you sure you're not yourself posting from Beyond the Looking Glass, judge?

BTW, I don't deal with the epistles, they are mostly forgeries anyway.

Regards,

Yuri.

Doctor X

Jack the Bodiless:

I probably do not have to mention that such claims come from nowhere in the text and are, indeed, contradicted by Lk-Acts.

Funny things you learn when you actually read the texts.

--J.D.

judge

Hi again yuri...and of course Dr X.

Do either of you really think the greek (and therefore the english) contains the correct reading of mark 9:49???

salted ????????? with fire??

RED DAVE

From Amos:

Where do you get this stuff? How did Matthew "record" that geneology. What is your source for Luke's being "inspired"? Frankly, I think you made all this up, just like Matthew and his buddies made up the geneologies.

RED DAVE

Mathetes

I imagine that Matthew went to the Judean Census Office, and checked the birth records of the genealogy of Jesus up to Abraham, that miraculously had been kept rigorously for 2000 years, having survived the slavery in Egypt, the Sinai trip, the conquest of Canaan, the destruction of the Temple, the Babylon captivity...

The hardest to interpret were the most ancient, that were written in a dialect of proto Sumerian that has only been deciphered on the XX century...

Amos

Hello Dave, I got that from Mt.1:1- (NAB) which reads "A family record of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham. 2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, etc.

In Luke the genealogy was not given to us until Luke 3:23 which is just after "A voice from heaven was heard to say 'You are my beloved Son. On you my favor rests.'"

A perceptive reader will take the word "record" as an alert because it is redundant to write this if both genealogies were recorded. He will subsequently wonder why the word "record" is not found in Luke but instead the genealogy is given to us just after the descend of the dove. He should also know that the descend of the dove is symbolic for the atonement with Mary (John B and Mary were bosom buddies prior to the liberation of Mary) who, at least in Catholic tradition, is in charge of the holy spirit here now symbolized with a dove (ie. if you have Mary who needs the HS). In other words, the HS is redundant after the descend of the dove, period. To enter a side issue here, I think that it is rather silly--and an obvious contradiction--for "spirit filled" people to pray up a storm to get the HS down from heaven and into their midst, wouldn't you say?

Doctor X

Red Dave:

As you can see such interpretation comes from reading into a text rather than reading what it actually says.

--J.D.

Devilnaut

It's the breadth of context. Amos' is large, yours is small and focused. This is a difference in vision and not a wrong or right situation (though I can see how it seems that way from your POV).

In other words yes you can know what words say without knowing (or worrying about) what they mean. When you want to know what they mean you must include other parts of the story. Amos is looking from the point of view of the whole story, you are looking at the words, then the sentence, then the context and probably stopping around there. Unfortunately though your consciousness alone (which is probably all that you or many feel comfortable relying on) cannot contain enough information to properly interpret the bible (or any art to a great extent). This fact (when extrapolated) actually contains (what I see as) the core message of the bible.