Iasion

Greetings,

Ah, sorry I was unclear

GREP is a program from unix originally, standing for
Global search and REPlace.

It is commonly used as a global text search tool, allowing one to search a body of files for a given term - such as GREP for Windows which I use.

I have most of the ancient works on my hard drive, and I can search them all in under 1 minute (350Mbytes) - a useful tool, if a bit crude.

So,
I searched for "hanged himself", "hang himself", "hanged themselves", "hung himself" - there are many such references.


Iasion

Peter Kirby

I think you mean you have most of them that are online in English

By the by... if you have the stuff from Perseus, how did you manage to download it all? They seem to give only bits at a time.

best,
Peter Kirby

Iasion

Who?

Poor guy - so many people get his name wrong

Iasion

Greetings Peter,

Yes indeed
Not as good as the originals certainly, but English copies are becoming much more available in the internet age - its great.


Yah, Perseus is a pain,
I don't get much from there, if at all - but its good for searching.

Fordham is a good source, and New Advent (of course one of the best resources is a place called Early Christian Writings - perhaps you've heard of it? )

One book I have yet to get is
Apollodorus, Library of Mythology.

Does anyone have an e-copy of that work available?

If anyone wants to share some books, I am happy to do so (provided its for personal research and not commercial use.)

Iasion

Chris Weimer

The general consensus for Matthew is that the bulk of it was written around 85-95 CE. As I pointed out to Diogenes earlier, there appears to be a redaction in the first parts of the account which take place at 1:21-23. At first I saw the aside as different from Matthew's other prophetic asides, which never (except in the other interpolation at Matthew 2:15) disturb the narrative. Now, 1:22-23 and 2:15 actually disturb the narration, that is, they place a future event during action. Also, those are the only places besides one else where Matthew uses upo + noun (in genitive). Such a different stylistic feature, interruptions of the action, and for the first one contradiction and duplication of another quote. The redaction, including the geneology, could have been late enough to get away with a matrilineal line, especially if it was done in the second century when the feminist movement of Christianity (idealizing Marys) started to really take form.

Chili

Hello Moxy, while they are fighting over which is the best lie let me tell you the truth.

First, I would ask why you would refer to the lineage of Joseph if you are talking about Jesus. Careful reading is important and always remember that the story is being told to you and not the other way around.

But it is a good beginning, really, because Jesus had a dual nature and therefore two genealogies are appropriate -- and they better not be the same or we'd end up with Jews instead of Gods in heaven.

Now about these differences. We can't argue the fact that Matthew is reporting from a record that includes a bunch of names between David and Joseph, who was the husband of Mary of whom Jesus "who is called the Messiah" was born.

We know that David was a Jew and we know that Joseph was a Jew to make the connection between Judaism and the promise of a Messiah to be born from the line of David. What we do not know from this recorded lineage is that Mary was a Jew nor do we know that Joseph fathered the child of Mary to which a hint is given with "who was called the Messiah" to avoid the notion that Jesus simply was the son of Joseph and no more needs to be said about that.

Then we go to Luke where the lineage was an inspired account given just after the HS descended on Jesus and a voice from heaven was heard to say "you are my beloved son, etc." We can't really argue with that except to say that we do not believe it and point at the recorded lineage of Matthew to prove it wrong. This where we go wrong because they are different to show the difference between Jesus as Jew and Jesus as son of God (who is the messiah while Jesus as Jew must be crucified the set this messiah free).

Just look at how the genealogy of Luke runs from Jesus the "supposed" son of Joseph (to point at the other son of God identity) to Adam to God to confirm the difference between these two identities of Jesus

Now that Luke's genealogy does not stop at David just means that Mary was not a Jew but was a servant of the Lord to the glory of God, who [therefore] was send to the town of Nazareth in betrothal to Joseph to save his world from slavery and sin. That Nazareth was only a city of God proves the Joseph was from the line of David in the purest form.

A lot can be added here but this is a good beginning.

A. Uiet bhor

See Chris? These are the kind of people who usually argue for a mary geneology, can u blame me for questioning your reasoning?

Peter Kirby

Well, yes. What you just wrote is an obvious fallacy. Wasn't it Voltaire who said that he'd rather some people just don't support his positions? But, logically, you can't judge his arguments by a kind of transferred ad hominem (associating Chris with some other "kind of people").

best,
Peter Kirby

Chris Weimer

A. Uiet bhor - Chili's digressions are not my own. In fact, Chili's digression is so far from my own I don't see how you can compare the two.

A. Uiet bhor

No no, i was pointing out my reasons for doubting the validity of his position in general, not using the irrationality of theists to discredit his arguments. He has non theistic motives, I just want to see if his reasoning is any better. Chili is just an example of why i don't trust the mary genealogy as so far all who hold to it are too easily discredited, thats not a fallacy thats just experience colouring judgment. If he has genuine reasons not based in foaming at the mouth apologetics fine, but where would he get the idea from if not them? I've been over mat and i see no basis for mary as anything other than a pagan virgin motif. It seems an odd coincidence a argument that is so often a symptom of a desperate need to harmonize is used by anyone with a good reason, and I'm still far from convinced.

You use genealogies to convince Jews of sacred blood lines, particulaly in the Messianic claims, they would not have excepted it from mary so why bother? A non Jew would not have needed a genealogy, unless they had a very superficial understanding of Jewish heritage rights.