Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 02-28-2012, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Apologetics nothwithstanding, doesn't the fact that Matthew and Luke have different genealogies bring into question the reliance of Luke on Matthew despite so many ostensible similarities?

Who says Luke relied on Matthew?

Duvduv · 02-28-2012, 07:25 AM

See chart at: http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/gospels/index.htm
While we're at it, what is Luke saying ideologically that he starts his gospel with the story of the Baptist and doesn't introduce the genealogy until the baptism, whereas Matthew starts his gospel with the birth story of Jesus?
And does this have anything to do with a dispute over Joseph's descent and its importance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Apologetics nothwithstanding, doesn't the fact that Matthew and Luke have different genealogies bring into question the reliance of Luke on Matthew despite so many ostensible similarities?

Who says Luke relied on Matthew?

aa5874 · 02-28-2012, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

If so, then who added them and why? And why the dispute over descent from Solomon versus Nathan?...

Why do some Christians today are attempting to show that Jesus was born through sexual union when Christians 1800 years ago argued Vehemently that Jesus had NO human father???

First Apology

Quote:

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter...

And in a writing attributed to Tertullian, it is also claimed Jesus had NO human father.

On the Flesh of Christ

Quote:

Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed................. He only wanted to assume flesh, of the flesh of man without the seed of a man; for the seed of a man was unnecessary for One who had the seed of God.

As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.

The NATIVITY of Jesus did NOT include sexual union in Early Apologetic sources. Early apologetic sources were NOT at all interested in and did NOT worship an Historical Jesus and Publicly documented and Circulated throughout the Roman Empire that Jesus did NOT have a human father.

The so-called genealogies suddenly became an issue in the mid 3rd century and was attempted to be harmonised by an apologetic source called Eusebius.

The evidence from antiquity supports a LATE addition of the genealogies.

A re-constructed Diatessaron does NOT even contain a genealogy.

Duvduv · 02-28-2012, 08:24 AM

In other words, some unknown interpolater added Matthew 1-17 later on with one set of names, so that the original Matthew started at verse 18. And another interpolater independently added Luke 3:23-38 so that the original Luke went from 3:22 right to 4:1 rather than adding it directly at the beginning of Luke 2.

The only lingering question with such extensive interpolations is that if these happen later in time, the earlier versions of the gospels had already become disseminated to the literati and then had to be withdrawn from a wide audience, even if not from the masses. And each time there was an interpolation, all copies of the previous version had to be withdrawn without leaving a trace.

Doug Shaver · 02-29-2012, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Who says Luke relied on Matthew?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

See chart at: http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/gospels/index.htm

I'm sorry, but I couldn't find the part where it says Luke relied on Matthew. Would you quote it, please?

Duvduv · 02-29-2012, 07:53 AM

Doug, look at the list of the stories etc. where they only appear in Matthew and Luke alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Who says Luke relied on Matthew?

I'm sorry, but I couldn't find the part where it says Luke relied on Matthew. Would you quote it, please?

Duvduv · 02-29-2012, 07:55 AM

I was just thinking that the idea of dissemination of single versions would require some central authority to do so, but if there were multiple versions circulating from different sources simultaneously before there was a firm central authority, recipients could have different copies with and without interpolations. I will be interested in people's views on this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

In other words, some unknown interpolater added Matthew 1-17 later on with one set of names, so that the original Matthew started at verse 18. And another interpolater independently added Luke 3:23-38 so that the original Luke went from 3:22 right to 4:1 rather than adding it directly at the beginning of Luke 2.

The only lingering question with such extensive interpolations is that if these happen later in time, the earlier versions of the gospels had already become disseminated to the literati and then had to be withdrawn from a wide audience, even if not from the masses. And each time there was an interpolation, all copies of the previous version had to be withdrawn without leaving a trace.

Doug Shaver · 03-01-2012, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Doug, look at the list of the stories etc. where they only appear in Matthew and Luke alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I'm sorry, but I couldn't find the part where it says Luke relied on Matthew. Would you quote it, please?

I asked for a quotation, not an exegesis. The assertion that they appeared only in Matthew and Luke does not constitute an assertion that either author relied on the other.

Duvduv · 03-01-2012, 03:28 PM

Doug, I am not an expert in this field. However, there is some interesting stuff on this page about this:
http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_LkMt.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Doug, look at the list of the stories etc. where they only appear in Matthew and Luke alone.

I asked for a quotation, not an exegesis. The assertion that they appeared only in Matthew and Luke does not constitute an assertion that either author relied on the other.

Doug Shaver · 03-02-2012, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Doug, I am not an expert in this field. However, there is some interesting stuff on this page about this:
http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_LkMt.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Doug, look at the list of the stories etc. where they only appear in Matthew and Luke alone.

I asked for a quotation, not an exegesis. The assertion that they appeared only in Matthew and Luke does not constitute an assertion that either author relied on the other.

I asked you, "Who says Luke relied on Matthew?"

Apparently, the answer is "Ron Price."

Thank you.

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

02-28-2012, 08:24 AM	#24
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	In other words, some unknown interpolater added Matthew 1-17 later on with one set of names, so that the original Matthew started at verse 18. And another interpolater independently added Luke 3:23-38 so that the original Luke went from 3:22 right to 4:1 rather than adding it directly at the beginning of Luke 2. The only lingering question with such extensive interpolations is that if these happen later in time, the earlier versions of the gospels had already become disseminated to the literati and then had to be withdrawn from a wide audience, even if not from the masses. And each time there was an interpolation, all copies of the previous version had to be withdrawn without leaving a trace.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.