Duvduv

That would still not explain why some names come out very different from the known pronunciation while others do not, and of course, why the author chose those particular names.

Jaybees

One of the early Xtian sects (a variety of Gnosticism if I remember correctly) had the reverse notion--that Jesus became Christ when he was adopted by god later in life. The creature who was nailed to the cross was Jesus, not Christ. Only an empty shell was left to die there.

It's fascinating to read up on the thoughts (and practices) of some of those Xtian groups back at the beginning. Some were almost as strange as the current ones.

Chili

You mean like the empty cocoon itself that so called Christians celebrate, which sounds strange enough to me and never mind those 20.000 variations of it, each with a different icing recipe to decorate their cake.

hjalti

I've heard that view being called 'separationism' (I think our friend Bart Ehrman used that in his book "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture").

outhouse

Yes there were many different views before it was nailed down. many fought over just how to define this divinity.

Chili

There is no divinity to define in the divine or the supernatural would still need to be explored in heaven, and that is precisely why the lineage was exposed so it may be raised and heaven can just 'be' the end in sight.

Chili

In other words, unity and affirmity, if there is such a word, instead of controversy is what the divine is all about or omniscience would not be omniscient and knowledge be a lie.

JoeWallack

JW:
I've inventoried the contradiction of Jesus' paternal grandfathers at ErrancyWiki here:

Matthew 1:16

No one has offered a defense. At ErrancyWiki I require all posts to include at least one of the following 3 attributes:

1) Simple

2) Logical

3) Support from the Text

The attempted defense that Heli is Jesus' maternal grandfather is not logical or supported by the Text but it is simple, so I would allow it. An outline of points against this attempted defense from my article would be:

1) The text explicitly indicates that Joseph is biologically from Heli ("of Heli") and the English equivalent is "son of":

http://biblos.com/luke/3-23.htm

2501 [e]	Iōsēph	Ἰωσήφ	of Joseph,	N
3588 [e]	tou	τοῦ	–	Art-GMS
2242 [e]	Ēli	Ἠλὶ*	of Heli,	N

Note that the "G" of GMS means the Genitive case as in "came from" (biological). This is a somewhat stronger indication of biological than the English "son". Any defense has to undo or at least try to undo this explicit statement.

2) You would have to have quality and quantity of implications to overturn an explicit statement but the quality implications all support the explicit:

3) The primary source for both is "Mark" which never names Joseph (no expectation of reliable source for Jesus' grandfather).

4) This primary source says Jesus had a brother "Joseph" which makes it doubtful that Jesus also had a father Joseph.

5) "Matthew" looks contrived as "Joseph son of Jacob" is the same as a famous Jewish Bible story.

6) Authority sees the contradiction here.

7) All Patristic/Christian scholarship assumed "Luke" gave Joseph's father until relatively recent times.

8) There are many other errors in the genealogies (no expectation of reliable source for Jesus' grandfather).

9) Origen confesses to us that in his time the Greek manuscripts were filled with errors regarding Hebrew names.


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.

ErrancyWiki