Rick Sumner

This is semantic. He believed that Jesus was the literal son of David by adoption. That's why he is so careful to change the wording for the last link in the generation--Jacob *fathered* Joseph, but Joseph was just the husband of Mary, who was the mother of Jesus.

I'll be sure to add "by adoption" at the end of each sentence from now on.

Absolutely.

This doesn't follow. Look at the definitions of literal already supplied. This would be definition five.

If they held it to be true without factual information, then carrying over to our present argument, they held it to be true that Jesus said the end would come within the lifetime of those present, without any factual information to support it. They still thought the end was literally coming.

The author, bolstered by prophetic writings, and his own strong conviction that Jesus was the Messiah, was emphatically convinced that Jesus *had* to be Davidic (though by adoption). Now he had to answer charges issued by others, as already discussed, that Jesus was *not* Davidic (by seed or by adoption). So he wrote a genealogy to *convince others of what he already held to be true.* He held it to be true that Jesus was Davidic (by adoption). Other people did not hold this to be true. So Matthew said "Oh yeah, it's true, here's his genealogy."

How does this follow? I read all sorts of books where I don't know what literally happened. That's why I read the book, to find out.

He wasn't submitting it for critical review.

Besides which, whether or not his audience believed him is as irrelevant as whether or not he believed it himself.

Let's look at a flagrant example. I read Robert Eisenman's book, James: The Brother of Jesus. Now, the odds are incredibly good that a sizable portion of the informtion he presents is false. I know it's false, he may or may not know it's false, but he still intends to convince me that it is true.

That is the case you need to make--that Matthew did *not* intend to convince his audience it was true. The examples being discussed--most flagrantly the genealogy--aren't helping you, particularly when you agree with my general outline. Matthew intended to convince people that Jesus was Davidic, because of his own belief that this was true.

Carrying this over is fatal to your other argument. If Matthew intended to convince people that Jesus stated that people would still be alive to see the eschaton, then some people needed to be alive, else he wouldn't convinve anyone, because it flagrantly wasn't true.

That is where the debate started. That is still the case that needs to be made. You seem to be losing sight of that.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

Rick,


I'm trying to understand your foundational argument that the author intended his work to be taken literally. Try to avoid jumping to the ultimately secondary though immediately thread-related argument until I've got the foundation, OK?

The author believed Jesus was the Messiah.

The author believed Davidic lineage was a messianic requirement.

(The author believed Jesus was conceived by God - where do you think he obtained this belief?)

The author believed Jesus met the messianic requirement of Davidic lineage through adoption.

Does this concept of adopted lineage have precedent in the Hebrew Bible or is this something the author is introducing?

Doesn't follow what? I describing how I am using the terms in describing different kinds of "truth". What terms do you consider appropriate for the following?:

An "< X > truth" is one that the believer holds to be true without knowing any factual evidence to support it.

A "< Y > truth" is one that the believer holds because he knows (or believes he knows) factual evidence indicating it.

This appears to be founded on the assumption that the author was writing to an audience that did not share his beliefs. What is the basis for this assumption?

Why do you believe the author?

If the author was intending for his audience to accept his story as factually correct, don't they have to first consider him to be a reliable authority?

How does this follow from the notion that he was trying to convince others of his beliefs?

Unlike the author of Matthew, Eisenman provides evidence of himself as an authority on the subject which clearly implies, if he does not make the statement explicitly, that he intends the work to be taken as factually accurate. This example, while possibly flagrant, doesn't appear to be relevant.

You claim that the author intended his work to be taken as factually true apparently by an audience that did not share his beliefs. I'm trying to figure out why he would expect that intent to be fulfilled given that he does not explicitly identify the source of his story as authoritative.

Amaleq13

Lest the questions slip off the page before answers might be offered. Surely one who insists that claims be supported would not hesitate to make an example of himself.

Amaleq13

I may be happily disappointed but I don't think Rick intends to respond directly to the questions offered. However, I think some indirect answers can be obtained in my post and those leading to it from this spin off thread.

jneedham

If Luke was a companion of Paul then Luke wasn’t paying attention to what Paul was doing. First, Luke’s description of Paul’s Damascus Road experience significantly disagrees with Paul’s own description. Second, Luke says Paul went to the local synagogues on his travels to begin his ministry there until the Rabbis threw him out. Paul gives no such account of this in his writings.

Amaleq13

Third, Paul's description of his relationship with the group in Jerusalem is contrary to that provided in Acts.

To quote myself from another thread: