The Geneologies In Matthew And Luke

[RED DAVE]

I have often argued with xtians about the genologies in Matthew and Luke, the discrepancies between them, etc. and felt that I made all kinds of terrific debating points, crushed the opposition and so on. However, it recently occurred to me that there were some other issues there, which, I'm sure someone else has addressed.

1) Given the fact that there are two discrepant genologies, why is this so? Why didn't someone change one of them, as was done with the final chapter of Mark?

2) If both Matthew and Luke depend on Mark, and there is no genology in Mark, where did this genology, in both its versions, come from?

Enlighten this heathen.

REDE DAVE

[Doctor X]

There were attempts to harmonize the gospels, but I imagine by the time this became a noticable problem it was harder to "correct."

In answer to your second point, I would respond, "from their respective rectums," if I were an unkind man, however I believe both wished to link Junior to epic history and simply came up with their own stories. Similarly, they try to make him a "Nazarene"--which really means a particular type of ascetic!--and part of the epic "house of David."

Neither Lk nor Mt intended to be in the same book together!

--J.D.

[Asha'man]

I think that both Matthew and Luke were trying to write a definitive replacement for earlier gospels. They imagined that Mark would fade into obscurity, and only their book would continue to be used by the new cult. Both books have additional material that clearly addresses objections that would have been raised against the story in Mark, such as providing more information on where Jesus came from.

It has been suggested that Matthew's author paid a Jewish scholar to write (read: forge) him a genealogy, and the scholar screwed him over. Matthew's genealogy seems to come from all the wrong sides of the OT family tree, from harlots and from cursed sons. Luke's replacement genealogy may have been an attempt at damage control. :)

[Rick Sumner]

Originally posted by Asha'man
It has been suggested that Matthew's author paid a Jewish scholar to write (read: forge) him a genealogy, and the scholar screwed him over. Matthew's genealogy seems to come from all the wrong sides of the OT family tree, from harlots and from cursed sons. Luke's replacement genealogy may have been an attempt at damage control. :)

I'd venture that that's intentional. Four women (other than Mary) are named in Matthew's genealogy--Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba. All of them gave birth to sons through relations that were unexpected, to say the least. Yet this is the genealogy that led to the birth of David, the great king, and Solomon, who built the temple.

This prepares the reader for the supreme irregularity in the birth of Jesus to the fifth woman in the geneaology--Mary.

Regards,
Rick

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The whole thing's screwy. To be (Orthodox) Jewish, one must be born of a Jewish mother. So you'd think they would list their geneologies only through the women.

Not to mention the alleged fact that Jesus was implanted and not actually the result of Joseph's sperm, so no matter how you slice it, the Jesus of the NT couldn't possibly be from the line of David, even if his mother was, because she was immaculatedly conceived. :D

[Amos]

Originally posted by RED DAVE

1) Given the fact that there are two discrepant genologies, why is this so? Why didn't someone change one of them, as was done with the final chapter of Mark?

2) If both Matthew and Luke depend on Mark, and there is no genology in Mark, where did this genology, in both its versions, come from?

Enlighten this heathen.

REDE DAVE

To understand it helps to see Matthew as the Jewish perspective, Luke as the omniscient and Mark as the pagan perspective.

There is no genealogy in Mark because [maybe] the birth of Christ -- who was to be called Jesus instead of Christ-- was not a physical event and therefore pagans could not possibly have any knowledge of it.

In Matthew the genealogy was a recorded list according to Jewish tradition and was given to us prior to what they called the birth of Jesus Christ. Notice that the father's name was recorded to identify the *persona* to whom the divine child was to be born.

Luke was an inspired account that was given to us after enlightenment and therefore points at the *son-of-man* here called Jesus who was 'supposed' to be the son of Joseph.

So the difference between the father and the son is that the son is the enlightened father who now is speaking throught his son-of-man identity. Hence Luke is the omniscient perspective.

An added dimension here is that Luke goes back to Adam to God while Matthew goes to the father of the mythology who therefore is the first of the recorded lineage from a religious perspective.

So it is obvious that Matthew and Luke do not depend on Mark nor does Mark depend on the others. They are just perspectives and the apparent descrepancies are there for a purpose because they all depict a reality. This now means that without them the Gospels and the Catholic Church would be a fraud.

[judge]

The first key to solving this "problem" is to see that Matthew was writen in Aramaic. Once we see this and closely examine the Aramaic peshitta the answer becomes clear.

Many of the references to matthew having written his gospel in "the Hebrew dialect" may stem from a saying attributed to Papias.(c.125)

What we have is this (in greek)MATQAIOSMEN OUN hEBRAIDI DIALEKTWi TO LOGIA SUNETAKSATO, hHRMHNEUSEN D AUTA hWSHN DUNATOS hEKASTOSSchollars have argued about the exact meaning of the words here but I beleive the plain reading is as follows...."that Matthew wrote his work in a/the hebrew dialect and each translated as best they could".


Now the immediate question is what was meant by "hebrew dialect".There is some disagreement among scollars but I think the "hebrew dialect" (note not hebrew language) was the dialect of Aramaic spoken by jews at the time of Christ.Hebrew had by this time long ago ceased to be the common tongue of jews.

This view would find support in the catholic Encyclopaedia..

.…Moreover, Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6) tells us that the Gospel of Matthew was a reproduction of his preaching, and this we know, was in Aramaic. An investigation of the Semitic idioms observed in the Gospel does not permit us to conclude as to whether the original was in Hebrew or Aramaic, as the two languages are so closely related. Besides, it must be home in mind that the greater part of these Semitisms simply reproduce colloquial Greek and are not of Hebrew or Aramaic origin. However, we believe the second hypothesis to be the more probable, viz., that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic.”

Catholic Encyclopedia (1913).


An interesting quote from this history is in Book V, chapter 10 concerning an Egyptian father named Pantaenus who lived in the 2nd century:


"Of these Pantaenus was one:it is stated that he went as far as India, where he appears to have found that Matthew's Gospel had arrived before him and was in the hands of some there who had come to know Christ. Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them and had left behind Matthew's account in the actual Aramaic characters, and it was preserved till the time of Pantaenus's mission."

Quoted from the translation by G. A. Williamson, The History of the Church, Dorset Press, New York, 1965, pages 213-214.

Ireneus (170 C.E.)
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect. (Irenaeus; Against Heresies 3:1)

Origen (c. 210 C.E.)
The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of Yeshua the Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew. (quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 6:25)

Epiphanius (370 C.E.)
They have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters. (Epiphanius; Panarion 29:9:4)

Jerome (382 C.E.)
"Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be an emissary first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Messiah in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Borea to copy it. In which is to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist... makes use of the testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators , but that of the Hebrew." (Lives of Illustrious Men 3) "Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve emissaries, had there preached the advent of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah according to the Gospel of Matthew, which was written in Hebrew letters, and which, on returning to Alexandria, he brought with him."
(De Vir. 3:36)


Isho'dad (850 C.E.)
His book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine, and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in Hebrew... (Isho'dad Commentary on the Gospels)


When we examine the Aramaic we see that the peshitta differentiates between two different men called Joseph.
Both Mary's husband and her father were called Joseph.


The Joseph in Matthew 1:16 is not Mary's husband but her father.

In the Aramaic text this man is called the gowra(father) of Mary.
Elsewhere in Matthews gospel gowra is used to denote a father.

In matthew 1:19 marys husband is referred to as her baala (husband).

This solves the problem of the "missing generration" as well.
Matthew tells us their is 3X14 or 42 generations but only mentions 41 (in our English translation anyway).

Both words gowra and baala were translated as aner in the greek and subsequently as husband in English.

This also solves any problem about Jesus being born of a virgin yet still being a descendent of David and solomon.

All problems are solved by correctly translation one word

[Doctor X]

Amos:

Read the Basics on NT Scholarship

To understand it helps to see Matthew as the Jewish perspective, Luke as the omniscient and Mark as the pagan perspective.

NOT SUPPORTED BY THE TEXTS

Luke is anything but omniscient!

There is no genealogy in Mark . . . was not a physical event and therefore pagans could not possibly have any knowledge of it.

MARK DID NOT FEEL THE NEED TO CREATE ONE THAT LINKED HIM TO JEWISH HISTORY!

In Matthew the genealogy was a recorded list according to Jewish tradition and was given to us prior to what they called the birth of Jesus Christ. Notice that the father's name was recorded to identify the *persona* to whom the divine child was to be born.

WORD SALAD

Luke was an inspired account. . . .

ISPSE DIXIT for LK IS NOT "INSPIRED."

No claim of theopneustos is made!

So it is obvious that Matthew and Luke do not depend on Mark. . . .

SEE ABOVE . . . READ SOME SCHOLARSHIP

Right.

--J.D.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Amos : To understand it helps to see Matthew as the Jewish perspective, Luke as the omniscient and Mark as the pagan perspective.

And why would we do this? Just for kicks? How about, Matthew as the Buddhist perspective, Luke as the fraud and Mark as the Hopi Indian perspective?

I mean, if you're going to ascribe religious significance (allegedly inspired by God) to various perspectives, why not branch out a little bit and turn to other borders on the globe? Or was the One True God and Creator of the Universe only concerned with getting His most important words across to Jewish believers and Pagan believers in only one small section of the planet; the rest will have to hear about it a thousand or two years later?

MORE: There is no genealogy in Mark because [maybe] the birth of Christ -- who was to be called Jesus instead of Christ--

Actually, he was supposed to be called....oh nevermind.

MORE: was not a physical event and therefore pagans could not possibly have any knowledge of it.

Un hunh. So, Mark is a paganist's interpretation of what went down? Well, that certainly explains why he got so many things wrong about Judaism, but doesn't explain how he got Jesus being so wrong about Judaic messianic prophecy, which is corroborated by Matthew.

MORE: In Matthew the genealogy was a recorded list according to Jewish tradition and was given to us prior to what they called the birth of Jesus Christ.

Was it now? I thought Matthew was written at least a hundred years after the birth of Jesus the Christ (BTW)? So Matthew just went and looked up Jesus' geneology in the Hall of Jewish Geneologies did he?

Would this be before or after the war of 80 C.E.?

MORE: Notice that the father's name was recorded to identify the *persona* to whom the divine child was to be born.

I see. So it's not a geneology at all; just a sort of, bizarre, "well, if he had been your child, this is what he would have looked like," kind of thing?

MORE: Luke was an inspired account that was given to us after enlightenment and therefore points at the *son-of-man* here called Jesus who was 'supposed' to be the son of Joseph.

So the difference between the father and the son is that the son is the enlightened father who now is speaking throught his son-of-man identity.

And the father is....? You said there was a difference, so what is Joseph, since he's not the father?

MORE: Hence Luke is the omniscient perspective.

So the apologetic goes. One might also call his the deification perspective; a logical progression in mythology, much like the children's game of "telephone," where a group of kids starts by whispering a phrase in one person's ear and it goes all the way around the ring until finally announced and everyone giggles when they hear how perverted it got within a thirty to fifty second span of time.

Funny how decades of Christian storytelling don't ever seem to share that same phenomenon. After all, they're the inspired word of God. You know this because the authors were so kind to point that out to their readers.

MORE: An added dimension here is that Luke goes back to Adam to God while Matthew goes to the father of the mythology who therefore is the first of the recorded lineage from a religious perspective.

Yes, well, let's keep emphasizing that "mythology" part and add in the central created character of that mythology; the character of "God" (played by James Mason) and to a lesser extent, Adam. Trace back the facts and you have a lineage of men telling mythical stories to their offspring in order to get them to behave (at best).

MORE: So it is obvious that Matthew and Luke do not depend on Mark

Whoa, whoa, whoa there, little horsey. "Obvious?" Only to one who irrationally believes they are "inspired" accounts.

MORE: nor does Mark depend on the others.

Well, considering that his was supposedly first and Matthew's and Luke's years later, that makes sense, now doesn't it?

MORE: They are just perspectives and the apparent descrepancies are there for a purpose because they all depict a reality.

But they are not supposed to be "perspectives," according the very same authors who told you they were inspired by God. They are supposed to be eyewitness accounts and inspired "eyewitness" accounts; as if God had shown them what had happened and what was said and so on.

As for "apparent descrepancies," they aren't just "descrepancies," they're contradictory accounts of the alleged actual events of the One True God's son/messiah on Earth.

The authors do not state they are writing mere mythology; they claim that they are recounting factual human history as it actually happened, as inspired by the One True God.

And as for being there "for a purpose because they all depict a reality," the point is that for them to be at all considered factual (non-fictional) accounts of actual events, they cannot be depicting a reality; they must be depicting the reality (as, indeed, they all claim they are).

So if they are either not depicting actual reality or they are lying about depicting actual reality, why would you accept their other claim that they were all inspired by God?

They didn't say, "Here is the mythology of Jesus the Christ as interpreted through my religious beliefs," anywhere while I was out, did they, 'cause if they did, we can finally call this whole charade off and get on with our mental evolution?

MORE: This now means that without them the Gospels and the Catholic Church would be a fraud.

"Would" be? Sorry, my friend. That ship sailed long ago...

[Doctor X]

Offers Koyaanisqatsi a soft leather chair and instructs Seed to hand him an Oban to allow the pain to just flow away. . . .

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Judge:

Sorry, but current scholarship demonstrates that Mt was, indeed, written in Greek--as his quotes of the Greek Mk demonstrate.

The Peshitta--for other readers--was a term used by Moses bar Kepha first in 903. "It is interpreted at meaning 'simple' in conrast the the Harklean version with its apparatus."

The very presence of Old Syriac reading in the Peshitta proves that it was not a new version but the result of a revision (or revisions) of a form of the Old Syriac text following an exemplar of a (mainly) Koine [Greek--Ed.] type text. The evidence therefore suggests rather a gradual development toward the standardized form of the Peshitta text promoted vigorously in the first half of the fifth century, . . .

The Peshitta and other Syriac texts are translations of the Greek texts. This would, of course, explain why translators made the corrections you propose.

--J.D.

Reference:

Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament

Aland K, Aland B. The Text of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B.Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988

[judge]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Judge:

Sorry, but current scholarship demonstrates that Mt was, indeed, written in Greek--as his quotes of the Greek Mk demonstrate.

The Peshitta--for other readers--was a term used by Moses bar Kepha first in 903. "It is interpreted at meaning 'simple' in conrast the the Harklean version with its apparatus."



The Peshitta and other Syriac texts are translations of the Greek texts. This would, of course, explain why translators made the corrections you propose.

--J.D.

Reference:

Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament

Aland K, Aland B. The Text of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B.Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988

Hi Dr X...
I did at one time believe that Matt was written in greek first, but as you can see I no longer hold to this.

Perhaps you could explain why you believe matt was writen in greek first.
This seems to be a rather recent idea as you can see from my quotes.

Have you for example looked at the Aramaic of Mark?

Additionally Aramaic speaking Christians are a bit perplexed that we westerners beleive the gospels would have been written in greek.

Why do you believe they are wrong?

Thanks

[RED DAVE]

Thanx to all who have responded so far. I'm still confused, though.

1) Where did the geneology come from? Was it just fabricated out of the whole cloth or does it depend on earlier, known, sources. For example, Joseph Campbell demonstrates that the begats in Genesis depend from the Assyrian king list that is recorded in, among other places, Gilgamesh.

2) How did Matthew and Luke get ahold of similar geneologies.

3) Why aren't the geneologies in Matthew and Luke identical.

4) Why didn't some xtian forger reconcile the geneologies?

RED DAVE

[judge]

Originally posted by RED DAVE
Thanx to all who have responded so far. I'm still confused, though.

1) Where did the geneology come from? Was it just fabricated out of the whole cloth or does it depend on earlier, known, sources. For example, Joseph Campbell demonstrates that the begats in Genesis depend from the Assyrian king list that is recorded in, among other places, Gilgamesh.

2) How did Matthew and Luke get ahold of similar geneologies.

3) Why aren't the geneologies in Matthew and Luke identical.

4) Why didn't some xtian forger reconcile the geneologies?

RED DAVE

You may not have fully comprehended my post.

Matthew gives the geneology of MARY
Luke gives the geneology of JOSEPH (husband of Mary).

The are not identical because they trace the history of two different people.

Go to an english bible and change the word husband in Matt 1:16 to father.
The Aramaic version says father!!!!!!!!!!!!

All the problems are then solved. This solves aditional problems such as the missing generation

As I have demonstrated above Matthew was not written in Greek.
People will argue against this but I have yet to see any actual evidence.
Dr X may still come up with something, we will have to see.

My proposition is this. Western, english speaking theologians have concocted a story that matthew was written in greek. There is no hard evidence to back this up there is just gobblede gook.

Early witnesses all contradict this,

This "contradiction" and others are resolved by looking at the original Aramaic texts.

[RED DAVE]

Judge, just for openers, if Matthew wasn't written in Greek, why did he mistake the Hebrew word for young girl, "almah," for the word for virgin, "bethulah," exactly as was done in the Septuagant?

I learned that one in Hebrew School when I was a kid.

RED DAVE

[Calzaer]

Matthew gives the geneology of MARY
Luke gives the geneology of JOSEPH

Really? Mary and Joseph must have been related then, since some of the names are the same. Particularly Jesus's great-grandfather. Looks like Heli and Jacob were brothers! It's also odd that Matthew doesn't mention Mary at all... and it's even odder that Mary's geneology, with her being Jewish and all, was traced through MEN, when Jewish geneology is usually traced through women.

Finally, it's completely irrelevant. Jesus is in no way related to Joseph (thanks to the Holy Spirit) OR any of Mary's line beyond Mary herself (thanks to the Immaculate Conception). What's that? Protestants don't believe in the Immaculate Conception because it's something scripturally unsupported that the Catholics "made up"? If that comes into play here, my irony meter will break entirely; the idea that Matthew's geneology is of Mary is in the exact same boat. (If someone is going to reject Catholic oral tradition and go with sola scriputra, it would be nice for a change if they'd STICK with sola scriptura and quit relying on Catholic oral tradition whenever it suits them).

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by RED DAVE


1) Given the fact that there are two discrepant genologies, why is this so?


Hello, DAVE,

In my view, the genealogies in Mt and Lk are discrepant because each is primarily a theological statement that expresses the views of two different early Christian communities.

The community of Mt focused primarily on Judea and Jerusalem, while the community of Lk saw itself in more universal terms as representing the whole of Israel (including the northern tribes). Hence the descent from Adam.


Why didn't someone change one of them, as was done with the final chapter of Mark?


Because of natural conservatism?

The text of NT gospels is like a complex quilt, where old elements are commonly intertwined with plenty of late stuff.


2) If both Matthew and Luke depend on Mark, and there is no genology in Mark, where did this genology, in both its versions, come from?

Enlighten this heathen.


Both genealogies are primarily theological statements. You can say they were pulled out of the thin air, whatever, but they were certainly not arbitrary. These name lists were intended to carry plenty of meaning in them...

Best,

Yuri.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Doctor X wrote:

"The Peshitta and other Syriac texts are translations of the Greek texts" (citing Aland K, Aland B. The Text of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B.Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988).

I can see that "judge" has managed to side-track this thread into 3 different directions at once.

We've already had a discussion with him a while back about the Peshitta. There can be little doubt that the Peshitta gospels are later texts, compared to the Old Syriac Aramaic gospels.

There's nothing that the Peshitta can do to help explain the genealogies in Lk and Mt.

As to the question of whether or not the Old Syriac Matthew was a translation from the Greek, I'll just say that there's not a shred of evidence for this. The Alands are not to be trusted on this, they are the typical Alexandrian fanatics with plenty of vested interests.

Best,

Yuri.

[Doctor X]

Judge et Yuri:

The understanding that the Synoptics were written in Greek is not a "new" idea to textual criticism, which quoting old tradition does not change. As Yuri notes, apparently the problems with the Peshitta as being "older" have already been discussed. What has also been discussed on other threads has been the attempt to make one the genealogies Mary's. Not only is it not supported by the text, it goes against traditional genealogies. Even with that erroneous assumption it does not solve the problem.

. . . not to mention that little problem with being born twice ten years appart. . . .

Now, if one believes one has "proved" that Mt or any of the other Synoptics were originally written in Aramaic rather than Greek I would be happy to see the peer-reviewed publication.

Nothing personal, but many can claim many things . . . or to quote an old science saw: "In God we trust! All else must show data."

--J.D.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Judge et Yuri:

The understanding that the Synoptics were written in Greek is not a "new" idea to textual criticism, which quoting old tradition does not change. ...
Now, if one believes one has "proved" that Mt or any of the other Synoptics were originally written in Aramaic rather than Greek I would be happy to see the peer-reviewed publication.

Nothing personal, but many can claim many things . . . or to quote an old science saw: "In God we trust! All else must show data."
--J.D.

And I would put it slightly differently, J.D..

The one who's making the claim has the onus of proof. So where's the evidence that the OS Mt was a translation from the Greek?

I've asked this question many times in different forums, and so far nobody could provide any valid evidence for this. Please note that I didn't claim the reverse; all I'm doing is simply asking for proof that the OS Mt was a translation from the Greek.

Believe me, such evidence is really hard to find. So perhaps it doesn't exist?

In any case, I'm not really satisfied with appeals to authority...

Regards,

Yuri.

[Doctor X]

Yuri:

Well I am probably the wrong person to ask that question.

The Greek Mt certainly preserves--and sometimes "corrects"--the Greek Mk . . . I forget if you have a problem with the Synoptic Problem . . . if you do than none of this will persuade you of course! My point is that one would have to explain how an Aramaic Mt incorporated a Greek Mk and was then translated into Greek without problems! The "Mk" in Mt would be very different. This would hold even if Mk was Aramaic--then you have both Mt and Mk translated into Greek without differences. I find that hard to buy.

A linguist with far better understanding of Greek would have to speak to the "Greekism" of Mt.

As for the Old Syriac of Mt . . . well, I do not know much about it. I have some references other than Aland but they may be from the same school. Of the top of my head it is a late text--Peshitta--and it is not the only witness.

It may be a bit like proving the Vulgate was a translation of the Greek or the LXX a translation of the Hebrew. A linguist who clearly has never gotten laid so he has expertise in those language which just makes one a "babe magnet" can comment on how Latin came from Greek because it preserve readings from "blah blah" and not the better readings from "this and that" and the idium are ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Has this been done for the Old Syriac? I can try to check it out.

--J.D.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi



"Would" be? Sorry, my friend. That ship sailed long ago...

If so you could at least thank me for the opportunity to tell us that.

I have no time now but will respond later.

Thanks.

[judge]

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
Doctor X wrote:

"The Peshitta and other Syriac texts are translations of the Greek texts" (citing Aland K, Aland B. The Text of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B.Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988).

I can see that "judge" has managed to side-track this thread into 3 different directions at once.

We've already had a discussion with him a while back about the Peshitta. There can be little doubt that the Peshitta gospels are later texts, compared to the Old Syriac Aramaic gospels.




Yuri.

Hi again Yuri...hope yu don't mind if I am a little provocative again. :)

What exactly is your evidence for this?

If there is little doubt about it then you must be able to show why?

[judge]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Judge et Yuri:

The understanding that the Synoptics were written in Greek is not a "new" idea to textual criticism,

--J.D.


Hi Dr X ..hope you don't mind if I am a little provocative here as well. :)

It amy not be a new idea to "textual criticism" but is is a new idea.

One without any evidence to support it...unless you are holding out on us?

:)

[Doctor X]

Judge:

I would have to simply refer you to the history of scholarship. Perchance a hundred odd years seems "new" to some.

If you feel you can prove otherwise--that the texts were not written in Greek--then you should add your voice to the scholarship by submitting it to the peer-reviewed literature.

Mk uses Greek idioms, for example.
Lk and Mt use a Greek Mk as their source. They also correct the Greek of Mk in places and alter some of his idioms.

However, I more than welcome a peer-reviewed article that indicates otherwise.

--J.D.

[excreationist]

judge:
I found some fairly convincing stuff about gowra here (http://www.peshitta.org/bethgaza/MoreOnGawra.htm) - though Aramaic peshitta sites like this one (http://www.lightofword.org/aramaic.htm) translate Matthew 1:16 as "husband".
BTW, here (http://members.ozemail.com.au/~wenke/bible/genealogies.htm) it looks like there are 42 (3x14) people in the genealogy... it says "and fourteen from the exile to the Christ" - and there are if Jesus is included.
If Joseph is the father of Mary, it should have used the same "...fathered..." or "...begat..." word like the preceding verses do. If God made that happen then we probably wouldn't have had this (possible) mistranslation in the first place.

[judge]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Judge:

I would have to simply refer you to the history of scholarship. Perchance a hundred odd years seems "new" to some.

If you feel you can prove otherwise--that the texts were not written in Greek--then you should add your voice to the scholarship by submitting it to the peer-reviewed literature.

Mk uses Greek idioms, for example.
Lk and Mt use a Greek Mk as their source. They also correct the Greek of Mk in places and alter some of his idioms.

However, I more than welcome a peer-reviewed article that indicates otherwise.

--J.D.

Hi again Dr X.
:)

1. Yes...One hundred odd years is very new. The quotes I provided are very old.

2. Doubtless peer reviewed literature will come one day. Problem is because everyone already knows it was written in greek why bother examining the original?

Is there any peer reviewed literature examining the peshitta and its relationship to the greek texts?

The emperor has no clothes.

3. Still despite my requests you cannot provide any thing precise or specific.
If you have specific examples lets have a look. Lets for example examine these "greek idioms"

4. Relationships between the greek of Mark, Luke and matthew are irrelevant if these books were all translated from Aramaic.

All the best:)

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Yuri:

Well I am probably the wrong person to ask that question.

The Greek Mt certainly preserves--and sometimes "corrects"--the Greek Mk . . . I forget if you have a problem with the Synoptic Problem . . . if you do than none of this will persuade you of course! My point is that one would have to explain how an Aramaic Mt incorporated a Greek Mk and was then translated into Greek without problems! The "Mk" in Mt would be very different. This would hold even if Mk was Aramaic--then you have both Mt and Mk translated into Greek without differences. I find that hard to buy.


Hi, JD,

Of course I have a problem with the Synoptic Problem! And especially, I have a problem with the Markan priority. In fact, there are 1000 good arguments against Markan priority; they are called "the Anti-Markan Agreements between Mt and Lk". See,

http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/synprob.htm


A linguist with far better understanding of Greek would have to speak to the "Greekism" of Mt.

As for the Old Syriac of Mt . . . well, I do not know much about it.


Well, I can tell you that *nobody* knows much about it! This is the Great Aramaic Cover-up!


I have some references other than Aland but they may be from the same school. Of the top of my head it is a late text--Peshitta--and it is not the only witness.

It may be a bit like proving the Vulgate was a translation of the Greek or the LXX a translation of the Hebrew. A linguist who clearly has never gotten laid so he has expertise in those language which just makes one a "babe magnet" can comment on how Latin came from Greek because it preserve readings from "blah blah" and not the better readings from "this and that" and the idium are ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Has this been done for the Old Syriac?


Not to my knowledge, and I've been asking about it for some time already.


I can try to check it out.


Cheers,

Yuri.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by judge
Hi again Yuri...hope yu don't mind if I am a little provocative again. :)

What exactly is your evidence for this?

If there is little doubt about it then you must be able to show why?

So you forgot already, judge?

[quoting my old post]

That the Peshitta came after the Old Syriac is quite clear by analogy with the Old Latin gospels, which are of course very similar to the Old Syriac gospels textually. After all, we know from good historical sources that Jerome was assigned to "standardise" the Latin gospels. Before Jerome, Latin textual tradition was rather unstable. So he's normally credited with standardising it.

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Vulgate
http://www.ntcanon.org/Vulgate.shtml

"In 382 Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome, the leading biblical scholar of his day, to produce an acceptable Latin translation of the Bible from the several divergent translations then in use. His revised Latin translation of the Gospels was delivered to the Pope in 384."

Thus, I'm arguing that the Old Syriac gospels stand to the Peshitta in the same type of a relationship as the Old Latin gospels stand to the Latin Vulgate.

[end quote]

In other words, the process that unfolded in the Latin textual tradition is very clear. First there were the Old Latin gospels, and then came the standardisation (i.e. the Vulgate).

So perhaps what you're telling us now is that in the Syriac textual tradition everything happened exactly in reverse -- a sort of a mirror reflection, perchance? Is this Alice Beyond the Looking Glass already, or what?

Here's that old thread,

Greek or Aramaic? (March 2003)
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=886036#post886036

Yours,

Yuri.

[Doctor X]

Yuri:

Markan Priority:

Must confress I find discarding Markan priority creates more problems than it solves. However, I am sure you have spent considerable time with the subject and do not need me to quote it to you! About a year or two ago one of the "anti-Markan" leaders published a book about it--it received somewhat polite review and was then taken appart. He was, if memory serves me correctly, pro-Mathean. This, in and of itself, presents a major problem.

Aramaic versus Greek:

Well, I can tell you that *nobody* knows much about it!

Or it may be that no one has considered the possibility that Mt was Aramaic first based on the textual witnesses we have. Or it could be a "been there, done that" after analysing the witnesses. Nothing, of course, stops anyone from working on it--look at the respective witnesses and see if one can make a better argument that they went Aramaic to Greek rather than the Greek to Aramaic. One cannot fault people with finite time for pursuing other avenues of research for all that is possible is not probable.

What I have "at home" mainly deals with seeing if the Aramaic preserves an earlier reading than the Greek . . . unfortunately it is in essays on Pauline letters. This is akin to using--correctly--the LXX to correct the MT in certain circumstances.

Judge:

1. Yes...One hundred odd years is very new. The quotes I provided are very old.

And as recent as thirty years ago people believed one could "prove the Bible" by walking around Palestine with a shovel. You presented the theological assumptions rather than actual scholarship. The scholarship is rather old . . . given how rapidly the field develops.

2. Doubtless peer reviewed literature will come one day. Problem is because everyone already knows it was written in greek why bother examining the original?

The first is sort of an argument from a vacuum, akin to a "doubtless evidence will one day demonstrate Star Fleet Command's involvement in the Kennedy Assassination." On the contrary to the second, people do use the Syriac in textual criticism and people do study the text. People are also willing to explore all sorts of ideas. As above, the Markan Priority is the established theory. It does not prevent Yuri and others from challenging it for various reasons--some have religious reasons since having the texts with the birth narrative "secondary" calls in this who virgin birth into question! Gather Mk just sort of "forgot" about it . . . must have spilled wine on that section of the Mt scroll. . . .

Q and its ever growing layers--"we designate Q147 to refer to two yak herders who exposed themselves in front of the Temple. . . ."--is also "established" with enough literature to sink the Ark, yet you have posters here who call it a "fairy tale" and recent texts that say the same . . . not without some basis.

So, yes, scholars will explore all sorts of avenues. Sometimes the evidence just forces them into a direction.

Is there any peer reviewed literature examining the peshitta and its relationship to the greek texts?

Yes, a rather considerable amount. Back "at the library," whilst my sources did not directly address Yuri's question with regards to Mt, it had a rather considerable bibliography. Now, I, myself, spend little time in the field, but if I had to explore it I would research some of the journals on textual criticism and even, in this day of the internet, correspond with some of the current scholars.

Most do not bite. . . .

Thus,

The emperor has no clothes.

does not really fit.

3. Still despite my requests you cannot provide any thing precise or specific.
If you have specific examples lets have a look. Lets for example examine these "greek idioms"

Methinks you should not presume to know the motivations of others.

Nevertheless, in a word, γαρ

4. Relationships between the greek of Mark, Luke and matthew are irrelevant if these books were all translated from Aramaic.

Actually, no. On thing certain about translation is that it is interpretation and the manner in which one person translates the order of words in one language will vary from another. Greek--English is a good example since the word order in Greek is "different" from the mind of an English speaker.

That Mt and Lk quote Mk--and agree in word order--sinks your hypothesis. If Mk Aramaic--which would make his passages where he translates for his audience rather unnecessary . . . why would his Greek translator bother? . . , then Mt and Lk independently took the passages. Then the independent translators of Mt and Lk, respectively, translated these passages into Greek in such a way they all agreed?

Now, that Emperor is rather chilly.

--J.D.

[judge]

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
So you forgot already, judge?



Yuri.

Hi Yuri ;)

No I did not forget I lost interest when you failed to provide anyhting specific enough (for me anyway).

If you have evidence then lets look at a specific instance of why the peshitta is not the original.

[judge]

Dr X:

Methinks you should not presume to know the motivations of others.

Nevertheless, in a word, γαρ




Judge:


Dr X...lets have a close look at what you are saying here.
Lets stop beating around the bush.;)

Are you willing to have your claim put to scrutiny or not?:)

Posting one word does not help. what exactly are you saying???


Dr X:

......The first is sort of an argument from a vacuum, akin to a "doubtless evidence will one day demonstrate Star Fleet Command's involvement in the Kennedy Assassination." On the contrary to the second, people do use the Syriac in textual criticism and people do study the text.


Judge:
I am not talking about "the syriac"
I am talking about the peshitta. Two entirely different propositions.

My claim is this.
No one has put forward any peer reviewed literature explainig why the peshitta is a transaltion.

If you think there are arguments why the peshitta is a transaltion then lets look at them;) :p

[Doctor X]

I recall a story from Martin Gardner concerning a friend of his who was an editor for a major science publication. He received all sorts of mail and had an "Oh Dear!" file. He realized that if he engaged in one, he would never have an end of the correspondence. Methinks a survey of the Creationist arguments against evolution rather approximates the problem.

Instead, according to Gardner, the editor would refer letter writers to one another. In respond to a "Flat-Earther" he wrote, "I have a gentleman who is excited by your theories," and refered his letter to another who claimed "The World is Hollow and We Live on the Inside."

He would then let them have it out somewhere "out there."

Indeed. A wise man proved this editor.

Now, someone who understands the problem sufficiently to comment, particularly render conclusions, would be able to address the use of γαρ in Greek, particularly Mk's use of it. He would wonder why a translator from Aramaic would find the need to include this word--particularly to the extent it is used almost to the point of combersome.

One would, of course, respond to the particular observation I have made concerning the process of translation.

Furthermore, one would certainly notice the Mathean and Lukan corrections of Mk's Greek--particularly from a grammatical standpoint as well as a theological standpoint--and be able to explain why they would have happened in another language first, and then been preserved in translation!

One time I did encounter a person who claimed the NT was written in "Caldean." I did not maintain a correspondence--he left my table quite aggitated when he could not reconcile some problems with birthdates--so I cannot engage him in this discussion and quitely move on to more fruitful areas of research . . . like child sacrifice.

Nevertheless, I have provided a very tried and true method to "put the money where the mouth is." I have invited those who have an "extraordinary claim" to give "extraordinary evidence" and submit it to the peer-reviewed literature.

For some reason, this has not been done. What I have received, in contrary, is the mistaken rational that NASA has to prove we landed on the Moon.

Well, I remain selfishly happy with my conviction that we did land on the Moon, and my current areas of interest do not suffer from the realization that the Greek texts were written in Greek. While I have stumbl'd upon literature supporting a few "flat-Earth" and "Greenpeace Killed Kennedy" theories in NT studies, I must confess I have yet to find any credible evidence to support the belief that texts were written in a different language and then translated with various idioms added . . . ala the myth of the LXX formation in that all 400-odd scribes magically created the same exact Greek . . . despite evidence to the contrary!

Is "absence of evidence evidence of absence?" That is not really the problem. Rather, you have the evidence for one thing and claims for the other. I have merely demonstrated where the burden of proof lies.

--J.D.

[RED DAVE]

Thanx Yuri:

My restless brain would, of course, like to see a prototype of this geneology is some Essene text or other, but, for the nonce, your explanation seems very reasonable.

RED DAVE

[judge]

Originally posted by Doctor X


Now, someone who understands the problem sufficiently to comment, particularly render conclusions, would be able to address the use of γαρ in Greek, particularly Mk's use of it. He would wonder why a translator from Aramaic would find the need to include this word--particularly to the extent it is used almost to the point of combersome.



--J.D.

Are you afraid to examine a specific instance?

Lets look closely at a specific instance

Come on in the water's fine;)

All you have to do is give us an example of a specific instance of mark using this word and we can subject your claim to scrutiny.

All the best..judge

[Amos]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
And why would we do this? Just for kicks? How about, Matthew as the Buddhist perspective, Luke as the fraud and Mark as the Hopi Indian perspective?

Hello Koyaanisqatsi, you do not have to do anything I say nor do you have to believe anything I write. I suggested that it helps to see the Gospels as different perspectives of the same event and that the differences are there to help us understand the causal relationship that are in effect during the renewal of the human mind. Matthew was the Jewish perspective and really is the effective cause of the story. Luke tells us what it looked like from the inside and Mark just tells us what it looked like from the outside. John is added to run away with the spoils that were needed to start a new religion and this was done in effort to further the kingdom of God in a faster and better way.

I mean, if you're going to ascribe religious significance (allegedly inspired by God) to various perspectives, why not branch out a little bit and turn to other borders on the globe? Or was the One True God and Creator of the Universe only concerned with getting His most important words across to Jewish believers and Pagan believers in only one small section of the planet; the rest will have to hear about it a thousand or two years later?

It is silly to think that God created the universe because the universe has no existence of being to start with. The truth is that God creates man and man creates God but that a mythology is needed to procreate man and recreate God in such a way that both man and God can enjoy heaven on earth.


Was it now? I thought Matthew was written at least a hundred years after the birth of Jesus the Christ (BTW)? So Matthew just went and looked up Jesus' geneology in the Hall of Jewish Geneologies did he?

I once thought that they had held a Gospel writing compettition in those days but now I think that the Gospels were written by one person (or group of mythmakers) and that all the descrepancies were placed there to befuddle the many followers that would search for the truth unto the ends of the world.

And the father is....? You said there was a difference, so what is Joseph, since he's not the father?

Joseph was the Jew to whom the story happened. Jesus was the reborn Joseph now seeking to purge himself from the old human/Jewish identity (the gospels take place in what we call Purgatory) and it is not until he gets his ego nailed to the cross that his true Man identity is set free (here under the name of Bar-abbas), and I think the final message of the Gospels is that we must do the same ([as I am] you must "follow me, Jn21:19)."



I'll stop here because I must go again.

[Doctor X]

One "afraid" to address the information given previously or provide evidence for his claim should not presume to know the motivations of others.

For the rest, I refer to the answer I gave previously.

Oh yes, Amos, you have no textual support for:

Jesus was the reborn Joseph now seeking to purge himself from the old human/Jewish identity (the gospels take place in what we call Purgatory). . . .

--J.D.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Oh yes, Amos, you have no textual support for:

--J.D.

So what do you think "born again" means?

Do you not see that the Gospels are a description of his rebirth and show us how Jesus worked out his own salvation?

Hint: Ask yourself why he was never addresses as Jesus in the four gospels until after the Resurrection and here only as Christ (Mark 16, Freer Logion)

[Doctor X]

So what do you think "born again" means?

Most ironic since Jn 3:3 does not actually say "born again."

John devotes the encounter between Jesus and Nicode'mus to the inherency of membership. In response to the rather likable Nicode'mus' both complimentary and insightful greeting, Jesus responds with, "'Amen, amen, I say to you, unless one is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.'" (Jn 3.3). The variants accept ανωθεν [anothen.--Ed.]. The ending --θεν [then--Ed.] places the adverb ανω [ano.--Ed.], "above," in the ablative. John is the only text cited to support translating ανωθεν as "again" or "anew;" all others have it signify "from above" with "from heavens" serving as the limit. Textual evidence from John corroborates "from above." Chastising the Pharisees, Jesus proclaims, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world,'" (Jn 8.23). The contrasting terms εκ κατψ [ek kato--Ed.] for "from below" and εκ ανω [ek ano--Ed.] for "from above" underscore the inherent distinction between Jesus and the Pharisees. They are not different people, they are a different species. The contrast and context forces the RSV to accept the proper translation of ανω. Translating ανωθεν as "again" or "anew" is unjustifiable, and frankly, unconscionable.

Nicode'mus wonders how he can become born from above. Verse 4 reads, "Nicode'mus said to him, 'How is a man being an old man able to be given birth to, not being able to go to the womb of his mother a second time and to be given birth to?'" Clearly he cannot. He cannot change his nature. "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the wind [Spirit!--Ed.] is wind.'" (Jn 3.6). Men, then, are either born ανωθεν, inherently chosen, or they are not. Kesus knows who the chosen are (Jn2.23-25). He gives them the ability to discover their birthright. The blind young man did not miss the mark, he just could not see it. Outer appearances do not reflect inner truth, for the blind young man and a Samaritan whore are chosen while the respected and influential Nicode'mus is not.

Author wishes to remain anonymous

Do you not see that the Gospels are a description of his rebirth and show us how Jesus worked out his own salvation?

Hard to see something that does not exist. Mk certainly does not speak of "rebirth," nor does, frankly, Jn. In Jn, Junior does control events more than in the Synoptics, but that is a different issue.

Hint: Ask yourself why he was never addresses as Jesus in the four gospels until after the Resurrection and here only as Christ (Mark 16, Freer Logion)

On the contrary, in Lk 1:26-38 Gabe instructs Mary to name him "Jesus." He is identified as "Jesus" immediately in Mk.

Why concentration on what the texts actually say proves helpful.

--J.D.

References Used by Source:

Kent Aland, et al., Greek New Testament, 3rd edition, corrected, Institute for New Testament Textual Research, United Bible Societies, Munster, Westphalia, 1966.

Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammer, Harvard University Press, 1984, ¶342.

[judge]

Originally posted by Doctor X


Now, someone who understands the problem sufficiently to comment, particularly render conclusions, would be able to address the use of γαρ in Greek, particularly Mk's use of it. He would wonder why a translator from Aramaic would find the need to include this word--particularly to the extent it is used almost to the point of combersome.



:)

Dr X lets examine your claim. Lets have a look at the greek here. You can choose your own instance and then we will look at the aramaic.

waddya say?

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by judge
Hi Yuri ;)

No I did not forget I lost interest when you failed to provide anyhting specific enough (for me anyway).


I see... So you still favour the "Beyond the Looking Glass" origins of the Peshitta?


If you have evidence then lets look at a specific instance of why the peshitta is not the original.

If you have evidence then lets look at a specific instance of why the peshitta is the original.

Yours,

Yuri.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Most ironic since Jn 3:3 does not actually say "born again."

Hard to see something that does not exist. Mk certainly does not speak of "rebirth," nor does, frankly, Jn. In Jn, Junior does control events more than in the Synoptics, but that is a different issue.

On the contrary, in Lk 1:26-38 Gabe instructs Mary to name him "Jesus." He is identified as "Jesus" immediately in Mk.

Why concentration on what the texts actually say proves helpful.

--J.D.



Well Jn.1:13 makes a distinction between "from above" and "from below" with "from above" being from God and "from below" from carnal desire. The difference between "from above" and "from below" is the origen of the idea that rebirth should take place. If it was from God (via Gabe--who is Gods only angel) it will be from above and if it was our own idea it will be from below. If from above we get a fish and will become the first beast of Rev. 14 for a short period of time and from from below we get a scorpion and become the second beast of Rev. 14 for life.

"From above" requires an immaculate virgin-like conception and "from below" will be anticipated beforehand and carefully plotted by fornicating evangelists in conjunction with our carnal desires such as the age of accountability, parents, girlfriends, fears, etc.

Notice also that what came across to Joseph as a dream was a direct message to Mary and this alone confirms that the rebirth of Joseph was incipient from God. I suppose you understand that Mary here was the resident woman in the soul of Joseph and that she was responsible for his return to Bethlehem because he was "as if pregnant with despair" and eager to give an account of himself. This journey to Bethlehem is directly opposite to his journey into the New Jerusalem at which time Joseph was fully in charge of his destiny.

[Doctor X]

Well Jn.1:13 makes a distinction between "from above" and "from below" with "from above" being from God and "from below" from carnal desire.

No. "From below" is rather locative.

The difference between "from above" and "from below" is the origen of the idea that rebirth should take place.

No. The person has to be "born from above" period. There is no second chance allowed as discussed above.

If it was from God (via Gabe--who is Gods only angel)

No textual support for that.

. . . it will be from above and if it was our own idea it will be from below. If from above we get a fish and will become the first beast of Rev. 14 for a short period of time and from from below we get a scorpion and become the second beast of Rev. 14 for life.

You meander. Please stick to the point. Jn did not write Revelations, incidentally.

"From above" requires an immaculate virgin-like conception. . . .

No, neither the whore nor the blind man were products of "an immaculate virgin-like conception." Are we to gather that parthenogenesis was so much more common at the time?

Jn is making a political distinction. His "group"--his intended audience--is "from above" and, despite their lot and the fact that other groups have the nice chariots with power stirups, they are chosen for glory and "the others" are not.

. . . and "from below" will be anticipated beforehand and carefully plotted by fornicating evangelists in conjunction with our carnal desires such as the age of accountability, parents, girlfriends, fears, etc.

Whatever. . . .

Notice also that what came across to Joseph as a dream was a direct message to Mary and this alone confirms that the rebirth of Joseph was incipient from God.

Ah! Ignoratio elenchi! The second part does not at all follow from the first. NO TEXTUAL EVIDENCE EXIST THAT JUNIOR IS A REBORN JOSEPH as in his "dad" or "stepdad." If you wish to argue he is the OT "Joseph" . . . still problematic.

I suppose you understand that Mary here was the resident woman in the soul of Joseph and [Snip!--Ed.] his destiny.

Given you have yet to provide textual support for your supposition I could not "understand" that which you try to attribute to me.

--J.D.

[judge]

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
I see... So you still favour the "Beyond the Looking Glass" origins of the Peshitta?

[B]

If you have evidence then lets look at a specific instance of why the peshitta is the original.

Yours,

Yuri.

Hi again Yuri...
OK heres a few examples.

1. Romans 5:7 mistranslated into greek. It only makes sense in Aramaic. The greek translators confused two very similar looking Aramaic words.

2.Corinthians 13.3 mistranslated in some greek mss and yet correctly translated in others. Here we have an aramaic word which had two meanings. Some translators went one way some went another way.

3. Mark 9:49 mistranslated into greek. Who ever heard of anything being salted with fire???
The Aramaic root could mean destroyed/scattered or salt!

[Amos]

Originally posted by Doctor X
No. "From below" is rather locative.

"From below" is rather worldly, for sure.

No. The person has to be "born from above" period. There is no second chance allowed as discussed above.

I fully agree, but try and tell an evangelist that. He'll zap you as often as he can and once more for good measure. From his point of view it is believed that those he 'saves' will be in "his masion."


No textual support for that.

Angels are a bit enigmatic all right but Gabriel is directly from God and the rest are under the command of Mary. This would have to be true if God is the first cause and not the first and second casue.

You meander. Please stick to the point. Jn did not write Revelations, incidentally.

But I think John did write the Revelations and gave you just one example of why I think he did.

No, neither the whore nor the blind man were products of "an immaculate virgin-like conception." Are we to gather that parthenogenesis was so much more common at the time?

Parthenogenesis is the only way because, if you remember, it was the tree of knowledge (wherein we are 'like god' and therefore masculine) that got us banned from Eden and so our return to Eden will be without the TOK in charge of our destiny. So in that sense are we 'all woman' and not human (if you allow me to place our humanity opposite to our womanity) and therefore parthenos in relation to God.

Ah! Ignoratio elenchi! The second part does not at all follow from the first. NO TEXTUAL EVIDENCE EXIST THAT JUNIOR IS A REBORN JOSEPH as in his "dad" or "stepdad." If you wish to argue he is the OT "Joseph" . . . still problematic.

Oh I think it is very interesting to note that the very same messase what was spoken to Mary in Luke (the Annunciation) came across as a dream to Joseph in Matthew.

Joseph was a Jew here to be set free from the bondage of slavery and sin. For this to happen Christ (the messiah) was to be born unto him and the new creation was to be called Jesus and he carried the old ego identity of Joseph to the cross and later recalled the shepherds-called-to-apostles-after-metanoia into the upper so he could enjoy also the old Jerusalem in the New Jerusalem (new heaven and a new earth).

Given you have yet to provide textual support for your supposition I could not "understand" that which you try to attribute to me.

--J.D.

OK, "pregant with despair" was from James Joyce and the "Journey to Bethlehem" as opposed to the "Triumphant Entry into the New Jerusalem" is from a Catholic paintings. Sorry about that.

[Doctor X]

I fully agree, but try and tell an evangelist that.

Irrelevant. This is a discussion on Biblical Criticism & History. That someone does not know what the texts he blathers about actually say remains his problem.

Moi: No textual support for that.

Angels are a bit enigmatic . . . God is the first cause and not the first and second casue.

The claim was that Gabe was:

. . . Gods (sic) only angel

But I think John did write the Revelations. . . .

. . . and I like to think I have a torrid affair with Uma Thurmon . . . the restraining order and pack of hounds indicate otherwise.

You would do well, again, to consult the scholarship.

Parthenogenesis is the only way because, if you remember, . . . FOCUS MARINE!!

Focus . . . focus on the point . . . the point was you claimed that followers of Jn--which would include the whore and blind man--were all immaculately conceived.

Since parthenogenesis does not actually occur in humans to produce a viable fetus. . . .

In other words, you theory does not fit with reality, let along the text of Jn.

Moi: NO TEXTUAL EVIDENCE EXIST THAT JUNIOR IS A REBORN JOSEPH

Oh I think it is very interesting to note that the very same messase (sic) what was spoken to Mary in Luke (the Annunciation) came across as a dream to Joseph in Matthew.

Irrelevant--Non sequitur.

IF the above is true it DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR BELEIF THAT JUNIOR IS A REBORN JOSEPH.

However, the Lk Announciation [Lk 1:26-38--Ed.] is UTTERY DIFFERENT than the speech to Joseph in Mt 2:13.

Let us compare:

Mt 2:13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him."

Mt 2:20 "Rise, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child's life are dead."

Lk 1:28-38And he [Gabe--Ed.] came to her and said, "Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" . . . "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. [Tries to quote Isaiah and others.--Ed.]

Now, yes, both do use "the" and "a," but, otherwise, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME

They are not the same in the Greek text either.

This leads me to wonder if you are dishonest by purposely trying to mislead with a complete falsehood, or you are sloppy because you have NOT READ THE TEXTS!

Quod erat demonstrandum.

OK, "pregant with despair" . . . Sorry about that.

Huh.

--J.D.

[Jack the Bodiless]

One thing that's confusing me about the "genealogy of Mary" concept...

I've heard that the Jews didn't trace genealogies through women because they were unaware of the existence of the ovum: they regarded women as incubators of a man's sperm, therefore only the male line was important.

However, modern Jews consider "Jewishness" to be passed down the female line: the status of a prospective Jew's maternal ancestors is used to determine if he/she is a "true Jew" or not.

Does this indicate a change of belief regarding the importance of the female line, and if so, when did this take place? Did the Jews of 2000 years ago NOT use the female line to determine "Jewishness"?

The answer to this question seems rather critical here. Either there cannot be a genealogy for Mary, or the argument that "Jews didn't trace genealogies through women" is not valid.

[Doctor X]

Jack the Bodiless:

The problem is that, in the texts, both the Mattean and Lukan genealogies come to Joseph. Mt goes Abraham to Joseph while Lk goes Joseph to Abraham--reverse order.

Mary is NEVER Mentioned!

This is just a dishonest apology to try to resolve a contradiction.

--J.D.

[judge]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
One thing that's confusing me about the "genealogy of Mary" concept...

I've heard that the Jews didn't trace genealogies through women because they were unaware of the existence of the ovum: they regarded women as incubators of a man's sperm, therefore only the male line was important.

However, modern Jews consider "Jewishness" to be passed down the female line: the status of a prospective Jew's maternal ancestors is used to determine if he/she is a "true Jew" or not.

Does this indicate a change of belief regarding the importance of the female line, and if so, when did this take place? Did the Jews of 2000 years ago NOT use the female line to determine "Jewishness"?

The answer to this question seems rather critical here. Either there cannot be a genealogy for Mary, or the argument that "Jews didn't trace genealogies through women" is not valid.

Both geneologies trace the male line.
Lukes geneology goes from father to son all the way to Joseph (husband of mary)

Matthews geneology traces father to son all the way to Joseph (father of mary)

The aramaic makes this clear. Joseph (husband of Mary) is described in Matthew 1:19 as her BAALA. Joseph (father of mary) is decscribed as her GOWRA


Does anyone here have an explanation for these two different words?

No...just a lot of hand waving.

here are two articles which may help.

http://www.peshitta.org/bethgaza/MoreOnGawra.htm


http://www.peshitta.org/bethgaza/Gabra.htm

[Jack the Bodiless]

Both geneologies trace the male line.

Lukes geneology goes from father to son all the way to Joseph (husband of mary)

Matthews geneology traces father to son all the way to Joseph (father of mary)
Matthew begins with "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." According to your interpretation, it then seeks to trace the ancestry of Jesus through Mary.

...And Mary was, of course, a woman.

[Doctor X]

Jack the Bodiless:

Indeed.

Not that later texts did not try to play with the genealogies to make them "fit."

--J.D.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Jack the Bodiless:

The problem is that, in the texts, both the Mattean and Lukan genealogies come to Joseph. Mt goes Abraham to Joseph while Lk goes Joseph to Abraham--reverse order.

--J.D.

Matthew was recorded and goes from Abraham to Joseph while Luke was inspired and is given to us after the descend of the HS upon Jesus. Jesus was born from Mary who was the undefiled womb of Joseph and therefore it was "supposed" that Jesus was the son of Joseph (v.23).

Luke goes back "to Adam to God" to create a new religion that was isolated from Judaism while sharing the same Genesis. This would be much the same as grafted branches share the same trunk and is why Catholics are sometimes called the "grafted branches."

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by judge
Hi again Yuri...
OK heres a few examples.

1. Romans 5:7 mistranslated into greek. It only makes sense in Aramaic. The greek translators confused two very similar looking Aramaic words.

2.Corinthians 13.3 mistranslated in some greek mss and yet correctly translated in others. Here we have an aramaic word which had two meanings. Some translators went one way some went another way.

3. Mark 9:49 mistranslated into greek. Who ever heard of anything being salted with fire???
The Aramaic root could mean destroyed/scattered or salt!

Hello?

I thought the question was which was earlier, the Peshitta or the Old Syriac. But none of this is in the least relevant...

Are you sure you're not yourself posting from Beyond the Looking Glass, judge?

BTW, I don't deal with the epistles, they are mostly forgeries anyway.

Regards,

Yuri.

[Doctor X]

Jack the Bodiless:

I probably do not have to mention that such claims come from nowhere in the text and are, indeed, contradicted by Lk-Acts.

Funny things you learn when you actually read the texts.

--J.D.

[judge]

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
Hello?

I thought the question was which was earlier, the Peshitta or the Old Syriac. But none of this is in the least relevant...

Are you sure you're not yourself posting from Beyond the Looking Glass, judge?

BTW, I don't deal with the epistles, they are mostly forgeries anyway.

Regards,

Yuri.

Hi again yuri...and of course Dr X.:)

Do either of you really think the greek (and therefore the english) contains the correct reading of mark 9:49???

salted ????????? with fire??

[RED DAVE]

From Amos:

Matthew was recorded and goes from Abraham to Joseph while Luke was inspired and is given to us after the descend of the HS upon Jesus. Jesus was born from Mary who was the undefiled womb of Joseph and therefore it was "supposed" that Jesus was the son of Joseph (v.23).

Luke goes back "to Adam to God" to create a new religion that was isolated from Judaism while sharing the same Genesis. This would be much the same as grafted branches share the same trunk and is why Catholics are sometimes called the "grafted branches."

Where do you get this stuff? How did Matthew "record" that geneology. What is your source for Luke's being "inspired"? Frankly, I think you made all this up, just like Matthew and his buddies made up the geneologies.

RED DAVE

[Mathetes]

Originally posted by RED DAVE
Where do you get this stuff? How did Matthew "record" that geneology.

I imagine that Matthew went to the Judean Census Office, and checked the birth records of the genealogy of Jesus up to Abraham, that miraculously had been kept rigorously for 2000 years, having survived the slavery in Egypt, the Sinai trip, the conquest of Canaan, the destruction of the Temple, the Babylon captivity...

The hardest to interpret were the most ancient, that were written in a dialect of proto Sumerian that has only been deciphered on the XX century...

[Amos]

Originally posted by RED DAVE
From Amos:



Where do you get this stuff? How did Matthew "record" that geneology. What is your source for Luke's being "inspired"? Frankly, I think you made all this up, just like Matthew and his buddies made up the geneologies.

RED DAVE

Hello Dave, I got that from Mt.1:1- (NAB) which reads "A family record of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham. 2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, etc.

In Luke the genealogy was not given to us until Luke 3:23 which is just after "A voice from heaven was heard to say 'You are my beloved Son. On you my favor rests.'"

A perceptive reader will take the word "record" as an alert because it is redundant to write this if both genealogies were recorded. He will subsequently wonder why the word "record" is not found in Luke but instead the genealogy is given to us just after the descend of the dove. He should also know that the descend of the dove is symbolic for the atonement with Mary (John B and Mary were bosom buddies prior to the liberation of Mary) who, at least in Catholic tradition, is in charge of the holy spirit here now symbolized with a dove (ie. if you have Mary who needs the HS). In other words, the HS is redundant after the descend of the dove, period. To enter a side issue here, I think that it is rather silly--and an obvious contradiction--for "spirit filled" people to pray up a storm to get the HS down from heaven and into their midst, wouldn't you say?

[Doctor X]

Red Dave:

As you can see such interpretation comes from reading into a text rather than reading what it actually says.

--J.D.

[Devilnaut]

It's the breadth of context. Amos' is large, yours is small and focused. This is a difference in vision and not a wrong or right situation (though I can see how it seems that way from your POV).

In other words yes you can know what words say without knowing (or worrying about) what they mean. When you want to know what they mean you must include other parts of the story. Amos is looking from the point of view of the whole story, you are looking at the words, then the sentence, then the context and probably stopping around there. Unfortunately though your consciousness alone (which is probably all that you or many feel comfortable relying on) cannot contain enough information to properly interpret the bible (or any art to a great extent). This fact (when extrapolated) actually contains (what I see as) the core message of the bible.

[abospaum]

Unbeliever,

What about things such as:

Jesus was a descendant of Jeconiah and Jeconiah's seed was cursed so therefore none of his seed would sit on the throne of David.

Hebrews also contradicts Leviticus- Lev 16 tells about the scapegoat and how the sins would be put on the scapegoat. Hebs says that a goat could not take the sins of man.

What are the 10 commandments- Does Jesus know them?

The covenant in the OT was forever- but fulfilled in the NT.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Doctor X

As you can see such interpretation comes from reading into a text rather than reading what it actually says.

--J.D.

If you look at the gospels as individual pieces they sometimes contradict each other but if you look at them as four different perspectives of the same event they will compliment each other, and this, I think, is exactly the reason why the differences are given.

So here with the lineage, Matthew is religious and therefore recorded, Mark was the pagan view and does not even know that there is a lineage, Luke was inspired because he writes from within the mind of Joseph and John shows us how Luke could have known because the entire lineage was present at the wedding in Cana.

Woman from Gen.1 is called Mary who gave birth to 'the child within' and because of that she now becomes the bride of the Lamb (Rev.21:9). Mary remains subservient to Jesus because she must allow the child to become the father of man in his own way and not just remaining son of man (child of God) until he dies nonetheless. In Catholic theology it is not until after Ascention that Mary is Assumed into heaven and subsequently crowned queen of heaven and earth (also each in our own way).

It is interesting to note that just after the wedding in Cana Jesus leaves religion behind with the "Cleansing of the Temple" to indicate that religion must serve us as a means to the end and thus salvation becomes the end of religious dedication and obligation. This concept is the reason why Catholicism does not cater to born again movements and is also why the term "Christian religion" is really a contradiction in itself.

I call John the Catholic Gospel because protestants read this just opposite as they tend to cling to religion and religious obligation for the rest of their lifes lest they lose their salvation etc.

So would it be fair to say that the four gosples are really a four dimensional description of the same event?

[Amos]

Much more important in the lineage difference is the significance of the difference between Matthew and Luke.

Matthew was recorded and is given to us prior to the birth of Jesus and Luke comes to us after his birth and not until he had found favor with God.

Luke says that Jesus was about thirthy (I think he was older then that) when he began his work as "the [fistborn] son of Joseph" here reborn and now ready to reform his life (we call this metanoia and this would also explain the missing infant narrative of Jesus).

That Jesus was older comes from John wherein the second wine that Jesus made makes reference to the second half of life (our evolutionary period) which does not begin until we get into the period we call "meno-pauze" (or andropauze today, I guess). The 6 stone jars signify the mid-point of life which is between involution and evolution and therefore is the darkest point of life and this is the night that Christ was born (midnight-midwinter-midlife equals 666 and from 666 we must journey to 888 which is possible only if epiphany follows the event which in turn depends on our degree of purity in relation to God).

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by Amos

Matthew was recorded and is given to us prior to the birth of Jesus


Weird...

:confused:

Yuri.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
Weird...

:confused:

Yuri.

Matthew 1:1. "A family record of Jesus Christ, son of David, etc."

Matthew 1:18. "Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about . . ."

In Luke no introduction of Jesus lineage is made, Jesus was born in Luke 2:6, was baptised and the HS descended upon him in Luke 3:22 and in 3:23 the lineage is given.

I don't believe that these are accidents but they distinctions made for our benefit.

[judge]

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky


In other words, the process that unfolded in the Latin textual tradition is very clear. First there were the Old Latin gospels, and then came the standardisation (i.e. the Vulgate).

So perhaps what you're telling us now is that in the Syriac textual tradition everything happened exactly in reverse -- a sort of a mirror reflection, perchance? Is this Alice Beyond the Looking Glass already, or what?

Here's that old thread,

Greek or Aramaic? (March 2003)
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=886036#post886036

Yours,

Yuri.

Thanks Yuri.

Not a mirror reflection :)

The Old Syriac have no direct relationship to the peshitta.

The peshitta manuscripts are all the same not because they were standardised but because they are all the same text copied word for word.

Variation would be the result of translation. Where the peshitta is ambiguous we find varaition in the translations.

Uniformity could be the result of standardisation OR it might just be the mark of the original.
;)

[JoeWallack]

JW:
There are far more problems in the Genealogies than is commonly discussed in Polemics. Here is a sampling of "difficulties" based on either the quantity of manuscripts or quality. Keep in mind that there are exponentially more variations if you consider the differences in ALL manuscripts:


Matthew 1: (KJV)
"4 And Aram begat Aminadab"
According to I Chronicles 2:10 it was Ram that begat Aminadab, not Aram. The earliest extant Greek manuscripts have the Greek equivalent of the English "Aram" for Matthew 1:4. (so presumably the KJV is correctly translating Matthew's error). The NIV has changed "Aram" to "Ram" correcting Matthew's error. The LXX states that Aram begat Aminadab so it's likely that Matthew made his error by simply copying from the LXX as he apparently was not fluent in Hebrew and so could not check the original Hebrew language. Some Bible scholars do theorize that the LXX was changed in some places to conform to the Gospels and that this is one of those instances. In any case Matthew's apparent use of "Aram" does not agree with any known Hebrew
text and in the absence of any evidence that the Hebrew use of "Ram" was the result of any change would be an error by Matthew.

Matthew 1: (KJV)
"5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab"
The only Rachab mentioned in the Tanakh was the Rachab of the
Conquest who lived about two hundred years before Boaz. Every
significant Church Father who commented on Matthew 1:5 assumed that Matthew was referring to the Rachab of the Conquest.

Matthew 1: (KJV)
"7Abia begat Asa; :8 And Asa begat Josaphat"
Generally, the oldest extant Greek manuscripts such as the Sinaitic and Vatican codices have the Greek equivalent of the English "Asaph" instead of "Asa" who according to the Tanakh should be in this location. The NASB has a footnote for Matthew 1:7 indicating that the Greek word was the equivalent of the English "Asaph". Most of the older Greek manuscripts indicating "Asaph" were unknown to the translators of the KJV.

Matthew 1: (KJV)
"8 Joram begat Ozias"
According to I Chronicles 3:11 (JPS), Joram begat Ahaziah so Matthew has omitted Ahaziah from his genealogy.

Matthew 1: (KJV)
"8 Joram begat Ozias"
According to I Chronicles 3:11 (JPS), Joram begat Ahaziah who begat Joash so Matthew has also omitted Joash from his genealogy.

Matthew 1: (KJV)
"8 Joram begat Ozias"
According to I Chronicles 3:11 (JPS), Joram begat Ahaziah who begat Joash who begat Amaziah so Matthew has also omitted Amaziah from his genealogy.

Matthew 1: (KJV)
"10 Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias"
Generally, the oldest extant Greek manuscripts such as the Sinaitic and Vatican codices have the Greek equivalent of the English "Amos" instead of "Amon" who according to the Tanakh should be in this location. The NASB has a footnote for Matthew 1:10 indicating that the Greek word was the equivalent of the English "Amos". Most of the older Greek manuscripts indicating "Amos" were unknown to the translators of the KJV.

Matthew 1: (KJV)
"11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:"
According to I Chronicles 3:15 (JPS), Josiah (Josias in KJV) begat
Jehoiakim who begat Jeconiah (Jechonias in KJV) so Matthew has
omitted Jehoiakim from his genealogy.

Matthew 1: (KJV)
"11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:"
According to the Tanakh Jechonias only had one brother.

Matthew 1: (KJV)
"13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim"
According to the Tanakh (JPS), I Chronicles, 3:19-20, Abiud was not one of the eight children of Zerubbabel ("Zorobabel" in KJV).

Matthew 1: (KJV)
"17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen
generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations"
Matthew has omitted four generations from his genealogy between David and the Babylonian exile. Even without them he still has fifteen chronological names.

Matthew 1: (KJV)
"17 and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations."
Almost 600 years separate the birth of Shealtiel from the birth of
Jesus resulting in an average of 46 years per generation. This
average is contradicted by all known averages for this period outside of Matthew. Luke's average would be 27 years and Josephus' average would be 25 years.

Luke 3: (KJV)
23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"
Compare to Matthew 1: (KJV)
16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
The father of Joseph (not sure what the correct term is for the
father of the husband of the wife who virgin birthed you as I don't believe that Amy Vanderbilt ever addresses this issue) according to "Luke" is Heli and according to "Matthew" is Jacob. Just going by names "Matthew" seems to have picked names based on their significance and order in the Tanakh. Jacob was the father of Joseph who had Egyptian children and "Jesus" is remarkably similar in sound to the Egyptian "Iusa" which means "the ever coming one". Of course this is just rampant speculation on my part.

Luke 3: (KJV)
27 "Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel,"
Luke has 20 generations from Zerubbabel to Jesus (it goes without saying that some of these generations are missing in some manuscripts) while Matthew has 11. As mentioned previously, for the time period covered Luke's number of generations is more plausible. Most of the names Luke lists for this period are unknown outside of Luke. Where Luke got them, God knows.

Luke 3: (KJV)
27 "Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,"
Compare to Matthew 1: (KJV)
12 "And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat
Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;"
According to Luke Neri was the father of Salathiel while according to Matthew and the Masoretic text Jeconiah was the father of Salathiel.

Luke 3: (KJV)
31 "Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,"
Compare to Matthew 1: (KJV)
6 "And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;" According to Luke Jesus was descended through Nathan while according to Matthew Jesus was descended through Solomon.

Luke 3: (KJV)
32 "Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,"
The earliest extant manuscripts have "Sala" which is different
than "Salmon" from the Tanakh. A majority of modern Christian
translations have mistranslated "Sala" as "Salmon" to make it agree to the name from the Tanakh.

Luke 3: (KJV)
33 "Which was the son of Aminadab"
The earliest extant manuscripts lack Aminadab and there is tremendous variation in names at this point in manuscripts indicating a likely omission in the original.

Luke 3: (KJV)
33 "Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom"
The textual evidence is that "Aram" above should be "Arni"
so "Matthew" has "Aram" as the son of Hezron (Esrom) and "Luke" has "Arni". Aram by any other name.

Luke 3: (KJV)
37 "Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad"
There is no "Cainan" in the related genealogy of either the Masoretic text or Josephus' listing. "Cainan" is in most Greek (Christian) translations of the Tanakh but Augustine is the first Church Father to mention the name so it's likely that "Cainan" was added to Greek translations because it was in "Luke".

If I was a nitpicking type of guy I'd list a lot more problems of a
more subtle nature.


Joseph

BIRTH, n.
The first and direst of all disasters. As to the nature of it there
appears to be no uniformity. Castor and Pollux were born from the egg. Pallas came out of a skull. Galatea was once a block of stone. Peresilis, who wrote in the tenth century, avers that he grew up out of the ground where a priest had spilled holy water. It is known that Arimaxus was derived from a hole in the earth, made by a stroke of lightning. Leucomedon was the son of a cavern in Mount Aetna, and I have myself seen a man come out of a wine cellar.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors_In_The_Christian_Bible

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abdulreis/myhomepage/

[Doctor X]

It's the breadth of context. Amos' is large, yours is small and focused.

One has to remain in the text in order to discuss the context of the text.

This is a difference in vision and not a wrong or right situation. . . .

One could just as easily declare that the proper interpretation of Shakespeare gives "Romeo and Julien"--the great homoerotic exploration--based on "difference in vision" and "breadth of context" and prove just as wrong.

Amos is looking from the point of view of the whole story, . . .

Ipse dixit and, unfortunately given the information above, wrong.

. . . you are looking at the words, then the sentence, then the context and probably stopping around there.

On the contrary, I have compared both genealogies in their entirety.

Unfortunately . . . cannot contain enough information to properly interpret the bible (or any art to a great extent).

I am fortunately not confined by this self-limited perspective. This is an argument for ignorance, an argument for defeat. Rather than confront the texts and consider what they actually say and mean--in contradistinction than what one wants them to mean--we are apparently to bury our heads in the sand and believe "we cannot possibly know."

On the contrary, what we can know proves rather substantial--such as that the genealogies contradict one another.

This fact (when extrapolated) actually contains (what I see as) the core message of the bible.

Unfortunately, wanting to see something does not mean that something is actually there to be seen. Case in point:

. . . but if you look at them as four different perspectives of the same event they will compliment each other, . . .

I must admit I find being born twice fourteen years appart from two unreconcilable lineages a most singular conception of "compliment."

However, if one can believe that Judas hung himself and exploded, anything, no matter how ridiculous, is possible.

--J.D.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Doctor X

However, if one can believe that Judas hung himself and exploded, anything, no matter how ridiculous, is possible.

--J.D.


Sure he can. Judas stood for Judaism and if given enough rope it will hang many a Jew and this only means that it is a great religion that is able to serve as a means to the end. So, to the insider the very thing that is trusted most will betray you and to the outsider it seems to blow up in their face. The outsider would not know that better times are ahead for the ex Jew or he would not be an outsider.

Judas must be annihilated because he cannot be recalled into the upper room or there would be temples in the New Jerusalam. In other words, Jews can go to heaven but only as ex-Jew because there is not room for Judaism in heaven (Rev.21:22).

In case you missed it, to be in heaven is to become resident in the upper room (subconscious mind). An identity switch is required for this and if you wish to read about one go to Julius Caesar III,i where Mark Anthony makes the pivotal speach in lines182-210.

[Doctor X]

One may very well wish to build a castle in the air, but he cannot expect others to live in it.

Should a participant wish to consider the texts he knows where to find me.

--J.D.

[Amos]

Sure thing and I don't need to elaborate any further. Thanks for your responses.

[RED DAVE]

From Amos:

Judas must be annihilated because he cannot be recalled into the upper room or there would be temples in the New Jerusalam. In other words, Jews can go to heaven but only as ex-Jew because there is not room for Judaism in heaven

I seem to be spending a lot of time on this board dealing with antisemitism. And here it is again!

So tell me, Amos, as I have asked many xtians before, did my great-grandmother, who was murdered at Auschwitz, by people who probably called themselves xtians, did my great-grandmother go to hell?

RED DAVE

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by judge
Thanks Yuri.

Not a mirror reflection :)

The Old Syriac have no direct relationship to the peshitta.


Well, judge, this would depend on how you define "direct". Most scholars believe that the Old Syriac is a precursor to the Peshitta.


The peshitta manuscripts are all the same not because they were standardised but because they are all the same text copied word for word.


Can you prove it?


Variation would be the result of translation. Where the peshitta is ambiguous we find varaition in the translations.

Uniformity could be the result of standardisation OR it might just be the mark of the original.
;)

You're still avoiding the main issue. The Peshitta is similar to the Latin Vulgate. The Old Latin MSS are very similar to the Old Syriac MSS. Thus, if the Old Latin was prior to the Vulgate, then it's also very likely that the Old Syriac was prior to the Peshitta.

Simple logic.

Yuri.

[Amos]

Originally posted by RED DAVE
From Amos:



I seem to be spending a lot of time on this board dealing with antisemitism. And here it is again!

Your problem is that you see it where there is none. My messages was very much pro Judaism and I speak highly of the religion as a religion and not because I like or dislike Jews.

So tell me, Amos, as I have asked many xtians before, did my great-grandmother, who was murdered at Auschwitz, by people who probably called themselves xtians, did my great-grandmother go to hell?

RED DAVE


Dave, I think that it was too late for your great-grandmother mother to get to heaven when she died because when we die our life is over and it is kind of difficult to go anyplace without a life, don't you think? Or did you think that somebody owes us somenthing when we die?

BTW, if it makes you feel any better, the same can be said for Catholics but not for protestants.

[RED DAVE]

Amos you wrote:

In other words, Jews can go to heaven but only as ex-Jew because there is not room for Judaism in heaven

If you are saying that no one who practices any religion get to go to heaven, please say so, and we can go on from there.

Dave, I think that it was too late for your great-grandmother mother to get to heaven when she died because when we die our life is over and it is kind of difficult to go anyplace without a life, don't you think? Or did you think that somebody owes us somenthing when we die?

I have no real way of knowing what this means. Please explain.

RED DAVE

[Amos]

Originally posted by RED DAVE
Amos you wrote:



If you are saying that no one who practices any religion get to go to heaven, please say so, and we can go on from there.

No, religion is needed to get to heaven and, in fact, heaven is mythology specific and so there will not be any Buddhists in our heaven. They have Nirvana and don't even want your heaven but an argument can be made that they are the same thing but just a little different way to get there.

My point is that you can get to heaven as Jew but not into heaven as Jew and therefore Judas, who stands for Judaism (or is Judaism personified), must be annihilated. Later the missing apostel is replaced by Matthias which means that Joseph the ex Jew returned to religion as Freeman and did whatever he did for the Church.

Notice that religion is like a vehicle that gets you from A to B and this means that you must get out when you get to there. This leaving religion behind seems to be no problem because it will leave you stranded and that is what the hanging and betrayal is all about. Notice also the anger Jesus displayed against the pharisees and maybe you have come across this same sentiment in real life today.

[RED DAVE]

From Amos:

[QUOTE]My point is that you can get to heaven as Jew but not into heaven as Jew and therefore Judas, who stands for Judaism (or is Judaism personified), must be annihilated. Later the missing apostel is replaced by Matthias which means that Joseph the ex Jew returned to religion as Freeman and did whatever he did for the Church.QUOTE]

Judaism (or is Judaism personified), must be annihilated.

Antisemitism at its finest, masquerading, as usual as religion.

RED DAVE

[Amos]

Ah but Dave, the betrayal by Judas is the best thing that ever happened to Jesus and you should be proud of that.

[Doctor X]

I have noted that there is no shame in ignorance, merely in the desire to remain ignorant.

Worse than shame, it seems that willful ignorance leads to bigotry.

The NT texts are antisemitic, and one can understand the reasons given the times and the situation, not to mention the theme. However, this does not excuse current individuals from being antisemitic or using the texts to justify antisemitism.

--J.D.

[Devilnaut]

The NT stories are about what happens right before and after crucifixion. It makes sense (to me) that for 'entrance' into heaven you need to leave your religion at the door (kill it off) because, if the religion was successful, you won't need law anymore because you will be above the law. What this means is that from a lifetime of sinning and confessional you will have embedded the "laws" into your soul and it will be natural for you to follow them. It isn't antisemetic, quite the opposite, it's a statement as to the overall value of judaism. But at the same time it's reminding us that no matter how great an idea is, it's greatest glory is only to point to God and never to be a God in and of itself.


What I meant by saying that Amos is coming from the point of the view of the whole story is that he has the benefit of being able to reason along with the bible and someone coming from the point of view of a skeptic does not have this priveledge. Whenever something does not make sense, instead of reasoning through it you have to fill the gap with extra information (making it overally less cogent instead of more)


It's kind of the same idea where you can often get things right the first time, and by going back trying to correct you might make it better for public consumption but you will also dillude it more.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Devilnaut
It makes sense (to me) that for 'entrance' into heaven you need to leave your religion at the door (kill it off) because, if the religion was successful, you won't need law anymore because you will be above the law.

You understand it very well Devilnaut and it really is a tribute to Judaism. In heaven we are circumsized by natural law (a broken reed he shall not crush) and untill such time are we circumsized by religious law for two reason, first, to develop a stream of consciousness that is needed to maintian religious order, and second, to provide the forbidden fruit needed to become lost as members of our own religion (here Judaism but Catholicism is much the same).

The laws are written upon our soul (as if in stone) but are part of religion nonetheless and must be removed before we are totally free (Zamjatin's "WE" is good in this but so is Romans 7).

The NT text are not antisemetic and if they appear to be antisemetic the reader should examine his own judgement first. Maybe this is another good reason for literary censorship of the bible.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Doctor X

The NT texts are antisemitic, and one can understand the reasons given the times and the situation, not to mention the theme. However, this does not excuse current individuals from being antisemitic or using the texts to justify antisemitism.

--J.D.

If it makes you happy, you can read the word Catholicism where I wrote Judaism and to really please you I should add that this happens more often in Catholicism. :)

[RED DAVE]

fROM aMOS:

Ah but Dave, the betrayal by Judas is the best thing that ever happened to Jesus and you should be proud of that.

Amos, frankly, I'm beginning to think that not only are you an antisemite, but you're crazy.

RED DAVE

[Amos]

Originally posted by Doctor X
The NT texts are antisemitic, and one can understand the reasons given the times and the situation, not to mention the theme. --J.D.

That's a scary statement Doctor X and I wonder if you realize that that the holocaust happened because some people saw it like you do?

I wonder if Red Dave would agree with me on this.

[Amos]

Originally posted by RED DAVE
fROM aMOS:



Amos, frankly, I'm beginning to think that not only are you an antisemite, but you're crazy.

RED DAVE

Well I am neither and let me take you to Galatians 5:4 to show you that this same is true for all believers. "Any of you who seek your justification in the law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from Gods favor!" So here we have the situation where 'born again' believers tried to cling to the old law and seek favor with God.

The Children of Israel did the same and therefore remained lost in the desert and died nonetheless.

From Rev.14:12 just after a description was given of the antichrist (the three angels soaring through midheaven represent the 666) "This is what sustians the holy ones (small h), who keep the commandments and their faith in Jesus.

[RED DAVE]

From Amost:

Well I am neither and let me take you to Galatians 5:4 to show you that this same is true for all believers. "Any of you who seek your justification in the law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from Gods favor!" So here we have the situation where 'born again' believers tried to cling to the old law and seek favor with God.

So, you're still saying that my great-grandmother, who died in the Holocaust a believing Jew, went to hell.

What a wonderful God you serve!

RED DAVE

[Amos]

Show me where. I suggested that she was burried with "it is kind of difficult to go anyplace without a life, don't you think?" and you, as unbeliever, fear that she is in hell.

[Doctor X]

. . . I wonder if you realize that that the holocaust happened because some people saw it like you do?

Recognizing a text as antisemitic is rather different than attempting to justify antisemitism based on the text.

I find it a singular departure from gentlemanly behavior to unjustifiably ascribe obnoxious opinions to another.

--J.D.

[RED DAVE]

From Amos:

Show me where. I suggested that she was burried with "it is kind of difficult to go anyplace without a life, don't you think?" and you, as unbeliever, fear that she is in hell.


I take it from this that you are saying my great-grandmother was "without a life". What does that mean. As an unbeliever, I don't believe she's in hell. But I believe that you think she's there.

RED DAVE

[Amos]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Recognizing a text as antisemitic is rather different than attempting to justify antisemitism based on the text.

I find it a singular departure from gentlemanly behavior to unjustifiably ascribe obnoxious opinions to another.

--J.D.

How can you "re-cognize" something that is not there unless it pre-existed in the mind of the reader?

I am saying that Judas died to indicate t