Originally posted by pcaspianNope. That passage only speaks of the geneology of Joseph. I want the passage that says Mary, mother of Jesus, was also of the line of David, as Darfius says.
Originally posted by thesonofsaul
[b]Thank you for that clarification. Could you perhaps cite the passage in Luke that does this? Just to tie up the loose end?
I believe he may be referring to
Luke 3:23-38[/b]
Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Nope. That passage only speaks of the geneology of Joseph. I want the passage that says Mary, mother of Jesus, was also of the line of David, as Darfius says.
http://www.bible.org/qa.asp?topic_id=55&qa_id=61
Its mainly over my head, but I believe it's what Darvius was referring to.
Luke 3:23 says, “And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.” Many believe that Luke is saying that Jesus was the grandson of Eli or Heli through Mary. Eli was Mary’s father and Jesus’ grandfather. By contrast, Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew.
Originally posted by pcaspianTrying to kill two contradictions with one stone, eh? I'm sorry, but the passage clearly says that Eli was the father of Joseph. If in a different book it says that someone else was the father of Joseph that isn't my problem. Perhaps this bug will be fixed in the next Bible upgrade.
Originally posted by thesonofsaul
[b]Nope. That passage only speaks of the geneology of Joseph. I want the passage that says Mary, mother of Jesus, was also of the line of David, as Darfius says.
http://www.bible.org/qa.asp?topic_id=55&qa_id=61
Its mainly over my head, but I believe it's what Darvius was referring to.
Luke 3:2 ...[text shortened]... father and Jesus’ grandfather. By contrast, Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew.
[/b]
... --- ...
Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Trying to kill two contradictions with one stone, eh? I'm sorry, but the passage clearly says that Eli was the father of Joseph. If in a different book it says that someone else was the father of Joseph that isn't my problem. Perhaps this bug will be fixed in the next Bible upgrade.
... --- ...
In order to debate the text properly I would suggest a knowledge or the original language it was written in, or examination of the Strong translation. Needless to say that Matthew and Luke disagreed in these regards is important enough to investige in more detail. For instance, the original church would have known about these discrepancies. Would one of the authors not have been regarded as incorrect and as such omited from the Canon ?
Whils't I by no means support any view as I know honestly too little about the matter, I don't have a problem with Jesus being from the line of David through Joseph. The passage in Luke (as suggested by Darvius) is accepted by some scholars however to refer to Mary's line. If you disagree, so be it, I hardly believe anyone here is qualified to debate that view though.
Originally posted by thesonofsaulSt Luke 3:23-24 reads, in Greek (with the Roman alphabet) with the english
Nope. That passage only speaks of the geneology of Joseph. I want the passage that says Mary, mother of Jesus, was also of the line of David, as Darfius says.
underneath:
Kai autos en Iesous archomenos osei eton triakonta, on uios, os evomizeto,
And himself was Jesus beginning as years thirty, being son, as was thought,
Ioseps tou Eli tou Maththat tou Leui tou Melchi tou Iannai tou Ioseps .....
Joseph of the Eli of the Maththat of the Levi of the Melchi of the Jannai of the Joseph...
So, unless, a person needs to claim that every single one of these was an
'in-law relationship' or that, for whatever reason the person opted to use
Mary's line all the way until Joseph (Jesus's foster father, as such) without
indicating it whatesoever (for example, by using the Matthian formula at 1:16,
'...Ioseps andra Marias' or 'Joseph man of Mary'😉, one could very reasonably
conclude that St Luke intended this line to be of Joseph. It is only in trying
to harmonize the two irreconcilable genelogies that one must make this
outlandish claim, that, suddenly, St Luke is talking about Mary without ever
mentioning her name.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioSo Joseph had two different daddies, Nemesio? Is that it?
St Luke 3:23-24 reads, in Greek (with the Roman alphabet) with the english
underneath:
Kai autos en Iesous archomenos osei eton triakonta, on uios, os evomizeto,
And himself was Jesus beginning as years thirty, being son, as was thought,
Ioseps tou Eli tou Maththat tou Leui tou Melchi tou Iannai tou Ioseps .....
Joseph of the Eli of the Maththat of ...[text shortened]... aim, that, suddenly, St Luke is talking about Mary without ever
mentioning her name.
Nemesio
Did the disciples make sure most of their stories didn't contradict but forgot to change Joseph from having two daddies?
Come on. I know you're on some type of crusade to make the Bible into so much toilet paper, but do it within reason.
Originally posted by Darfius
So Joseph had two different daddies, Nemesio? Is that it?
No. One author created one geneology, the other created a different one.
Did the disciples make sure most of their stories didn't contradict but forgot to change Joseph from having two daddies?
The disciples were dead before these stories came into being. The
reason they weren't harmonized was because such geneologies would
have only been of interest to Jews, not Gentiles, who became the primary
audience after the first century.
Come on. I know you're on some type of crusade to make the Bible into so much toilet paper, but do it within reason.
You are a fool if you think I've studied the Bible this hard to argue with
mindless automatons such as yourself. The reason I have studied the
Bible has closely as I have is because of my deep reverence for it. I
know you want to demonize me (what was your last 'guess' -- a liberal or
rabid Catholic -- I can't remember) so you can place me in a little box that
says 'heretic' but you know in your heart that it isn't true. I know the
NT and secondary literature very well and it poses a difficulty for literalists
who want to claim inerrancy.
One day you may open your mind to the limitless possibilities that
interpretation affords, but right now you are in the rut called 'literalism'
which will get you nowhere theologically.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI wonder how you reconcile it when Peter says all scripture is God-breathed?
Originally posted by Darfius
[b]So Joseph had two different daddies, Nemesio? Is that it?
No. One author created one geneology, the other created a different one.
Did the disciples make sure most of their stories didn't contradict but forgot to change Joseph from having two daddies?
The disciples were dead before these storie ...[text shortened]... w you are in the rut called 'literalism'
which will get you nowhere theologically.
Nemesio[/b]
Face it, you put yourself in a box. And no, the disciples weren't dead. Where's your proof? I'm very interested in the scholarly, peer-reviewed essay you have that makes this claim and can substantiate it.
Originally posted by DarfiusUm, what does "God-breathed" mean? I seem to recall you brushing aside one of the Biblical contradictions by saying that the Gospels were only "inspired" by God and therefore open to error. I do wish you'd make up your mind.
I wonder how you reconcile it when Peter says all scripture is God-breathed?
Face it, you put yourself in a box. And no, the disciples weren't dead. Where's your proof? I'm very interested in the scholarly, peer-reviewed essay you have that makes this claim and can substantiate it.
... --- ...
Originally posted by thesonofsaulInspired and God-breathed are the same thing. My mind's been made up for awhile. 😉
Um, what does "God-breathed" mean? I seem to recall you brushing aside one of the Biblical contradictions by saying that the Gospels were only "inspired" by God and therefore open to error. I do wish you'd make up your mind.
... --- ...
Originally posted by Darfius
I wonder how you reconcile it when Peter says all scripture is God-breathed?
St Peter? Do you mean 'deutero' St Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16?
That is, 'All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching....'
Yes. However, it fails to define 'what Scripture is.' That definition
came fully 200+ years after this letter was penned (and, I might add
that definition includes the seven books of the OT that you deny as
Scriptural). If we accept this statement as 'authoritatively deigned
by God,' then where does that get us. It is only saying that 'All that
is Scripture is inspired by God.' If I reject, say, the Letter of the
Hebrews as Scripture, have I violated anything? Not according to the
literal reading of that letter. In fact, the letter itself makes no claim
to be 'God-breathed' itself, only that Scripture is God-breathed.
Face it, you put yourself in a box. And no, the disciples weren't dead. Where's your proof? I'm very interested in the scholarly, peer-reviewed essay you have that makes this claim and can substantiate it.
Before I give you my evidence, I want you to give me the years in
which you believe that the Disciples died. Let's say, just the dates
in which Sts Peter, Paul, John, James, and Thomas if you can't find
the others.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI can't remember dates and I'm too lazy to look them up 🙂
Originally posted by Darfius
[b]I wonder how you reconcile it when Peter says all scripture is God-breathed?
St Peter? Do you mean 'deutero' St Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16?
That is, 'All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching....'
Yes. However, it fails to define 'what Scripture is.' That definition
came fully 200+ ...[text shortened]...
in which Sts Peter, Paul, John, James, and Thomas if you can't find
the others.
Nemesio[/b]
However, I don't think other people wrote the gospels. 1) John is always talking about himself. That would be a weird book to write, unless you were John. 2) Luke was writing a letter. If some clergyman from that era were trying to write a gospel, I don't think he would go about it the way the gospels are presented.
Originally posted by NemesioJesus referred both to Genesis and Daniel (off the top of my head), do you count them both as Scripture?
Originally posted by Darfius
[b]I wonder how you reconcile it when Peter says all scripture is God-breathed?
St Peter? Do you mean 'deutero' St Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16?
That is, 'All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching....'
Yes. However, it fails to define 'what Scripture is.' That definition
came fully 200+ ...[text shortened]...
in which Sts Peter, Paul, John, James, and Thomas if you can't find
the others.
Nemesio[/b]
And you made the outlandish claim about the disciples not writing it, prove it, I need divulge nothing.