epoq

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: epoq ]</p>

Boro Nut

And 'fuck'.

Boro Nut

epoq

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: epoq ]</p>

Vibr8gKiwi

What's the big deal? What do you care if we think you're a Christian? You accept a stretched argument over taking the text at its face--why would any non-Christian do that? I would think only Christians have a reason to stretch to make the text appear not to conflict. So, flat out question: do you accept Jesus as your savior or do you deny him in front of all these witnesses?

I'm an atheist so I have no use for Jesus or other gods on a stick. See--being up front is so simple, honest and easy

Uzzah

It is incorrect that luke's genealogy is that of mary. If you read the bible closely, luke even tells you this. I'll explain.

In luke 1:34 we find that this genealogy concerns itself with the tribe of Judah.
And here is what luke says briefly about mary's genealogy. Keep in mind you have to put two passages together to get this info.

first luke 1:5
Here we see that Elizabeth is a decendant of Aaron. Now Aaron is from the tribe of Levi, not of Judah.

second luke 1:34-36
Here we clearly see that Elizabeth is related to mary. (Some translate it as "cousin") If this is so, that means that mary is of the tribe of Levi, not of Judah. Which of course means that luke's genealogy can not be of her, but of joseph.

Hopefully that clears things up.


Uzzah

Kosh

I think somebody hasn't got laid in a LONG time.

Wyz_sub10

How could they both have argued "successfully"?

The attack lessens your credibility for what you have to say. The link is "evidence", perhaps. You might like to talk to Peter E. Faulkner. I'm sure you could come to an agreement on the definition of "evidence".

What argument did you present?

I've already addressed it. But just to repeat - Explain the three generations above Jesus - why does Joseph have the same grandfather in each aacount, yet you say these accounts are for different lines?

Show me other biblical or historical accounts where the used the father, but meant the mother.

This is your claim. You provide the validation.

CX

This translation is simply not intelligible either in English or in Greek. According to the NA27 the Greek is:

KAI AUTOSHN IHSOUS ARXOMENOS hWSEI ETWN TRIAKONTA, WN hUIOS, WS ENOMIZETO, IWSEF TOU HLI...


We should recall that the orginal Greek MSS have no punctuation whatsoever such that creative uses of parentheses, commas and other punctuation should be suspected of translation bias. The commas in the above referenced text from the NA27 were agreed upon by the editors (including Dr. Aland).

Given the above the most sensible translation is

"And Jesus was himself about 30 years old when he began his ministry and was the son, as was supposed, of Joseph, the son of Heli."

The phrase IWSEF TOU HLI is unambiguously a reference to Joseph being the son of Heli. Mary does not enter into it nor does Jesus. The "as was supposed" is an oblique reference to the presumed fact of the virgin birth, indicating that Joseph was not, strictly speaking, Jesus' father. The absence of the article in the phrase hUIOS, WS ENOMIZETO, IWSEF is irrelevant. The article is regularly dropped in Greek. The fact that there are several variant readings, including transpositions etc. listed in the critical apparatus owes itself to the obvious difficultly the differences between Luke's genealogy and Matt's create for literal readings of the text. There is simply no sensible reason to conclude that the two genealogies can be harmonized and most biblical scholars presently reject such attempts. Including the editors of the NA27.

Douglas J. Bender

Wyz_sub10,

&lt;"Mirroring" on&gt; Well, on behalf of Christian apologists everywhere, I thank you for acknowledging us. I can tell you'd be an objective, fair-minded debate opponent, right off the bat. You so exemplify the attitudes and character of atheists - I salute you. &lt;"Mirroring" off&gt;


In Christ,

Douglas

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Wyz_sub10

Well, I can't speak for all atheists. Just myself really.

You're more than free to look at my other posts to see if I really am objective and fair-minded. You won't, of course, but I cannot say I blame you.

Actually, I do apologize for the generalization. It is uncharacteristic of me and I was responding to an attack with a counter-attack.