|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 13, 2007 10:25:18 GMT -4
wdmundt,
"Obviously, the passage does not say that it is the genealogy of Mary. However, we can rest assured that it is that of Mary for several reasons. First, it is completely different from the one in Matthew. This suggests that each genealogy follows a different parent. Second, giving both genealogies (although unusual) is required because of the unusual circumstances. Third, the Matthew genealogy uses the word "begat" to define the line. This is a biological term and pretty much has to refer to biological descent. The key phrase in Luke is "the son of." Although this often refers to biological descent, it is often used of adopted children and other situations as well. In a sense, Joseph adopted Jesus as His earthly son. The best understanding of the two genealogies is that Matthew refers to the line of Joseph for legal reasons and Luke refers to the human line through Mary." (Learning the Bible)
If Luke was attempting to perpetrate a hoax, he would certainly have taken care to do the genealogy that way (making direct reference to Mary).
Matthew didn't make a mistake in listing Jeconiah in his genealogy. To claim that he didn't realize the significance of naming Jeconiah is to assume facts not in evidence.
On the subject of the women in Matthew's genealogy, I suggest that they are there to relieve doubts about how Mary became pregnant before Joseph had the legal right to conjugal relations with her. There are other imperfect women in the genealogy, so there was no reason for Mary to be perfect. Again, this would have been at a time when Jesus was claimed to be the Messiah, not the son of God.
We agree on something. Mary was not perfect. Only Roman Catholocism makes that claim and even then, the "immaculate conception," i.e. the concept that Mary was born without original sin, was only invented centuries after the biblical events.
In reviewing what we know about Mary, I have to say I was struck by how little there is of her in Paul and in the Gospels. Paul really says nothing of her at all. Mark provides a glimpse of her, but no details. Luke and Matthew give us a bit better picture, but not all that much. John gives us that she had a sister. We don't know her parents' names or much of anything else about her.
There was no reason to spend a lot of time on Mary. Aside from the virgin birth and her genealogy, she wasn't of great importance to the events that later took place. I found it interesting that Jesus never referred to her as "mother" in scripture. He always called her "woman" in public. No doubt God in His wisdom foresaw the idolatry of the Roman church in regard to Mary and was taking care not to give them any fuel.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 13, 2007 10:41:26 GMT -4
It suggests two writers working separately, to me. It is only because all these books were bound together hundreds of years later that we make the assumption that the authors knew each other and were comparing notes.
I should have said "probably."
I'm not saying this is a hoax. I believe this is the fleshing out of a myth by several very human writers who believed the story and wanted to show how it could be true.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 13, 2007 11:19:49 GMT -4
Well, again, the major problems here are that Luke's genealogy says Joseph, not Mary, and both genealogies very much seem to be making direct father-son connections throughout. I disagree. Matthew's genealogy is too short and arranged in too convenient numbers (14 generations between significant events) to be a direct father-son correlation. Genealogies that didn't mention less significant names and that arranged the names into 14s (tesseradecads) seem to have been fairly common practices by the Jews of the period. As I've said before this is an "If I ran the zoo" argument. Saying "Luke didn't mention x" doesn't mean Luke didn't believe or didn't know about x. What evidence is there that the virgin birth story wasn't there to start with? It's not a mistake if Matthew was tracing the line of royal succession. That line went through Coniah, even though there were no kings of the House of David after Coniah that served as such. What evidence is there that there were doubts about Jesus' parentage? As far as the gospels say only Elizabeth and Joseph knew that Mary had been pregnant before they were married, and Joseph had a vision to explain the matter to him. Joseph, by the way, could have made Mary's condition very public before breaking off the engagement. Jewish law allowed a public trial and condemnation or by private agreement attested to by wittnessess. That Joseph was going to use the private method before his vision indicates this was more than just an arranged marriage. What evidence is there that Jesus didn't claim to be the Son of God from the beginning? Why should they have said more? Their focus is on Jesus and more specifically his teachings, not on his mother.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 13, 2007 12:07:11 GMT -4
The last 14 actually seem to be 13.
Zoo or no zoo, Luke does not say that Mary belonged to the house of David. It is key to your argument that Luke's genealogy belongs to Mary -- yet Luke says nothing of this kind.
Paul does not mention the virgin birth -- Paul is the only writer we actually know something about. Mark does not mention the virgin birth. John does not mention the virgin birth. We don't know when the gospels were written or who their authors were. It is only assumed that the gospel writers knew each other or knew each other's works. Paul, Mark and John seem unaware of the virgin birth. You can say Mark and John had no reason to write about the virgin birth, but that argument is made without knowledge of when, where and who those writers were.
Just noting that so very much is made of Mary by some, when we know so little about her.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 13, 2007 12:21:29 GMT -4
The last 14 actually seem to be 13. Matthrew 1:17 "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations." Whether Matthew counted correctly or not (he seems to be counting Jeconiah twice), he did try to arrange the names in groups of fourteen. That may indicate that some names have been left out to allow the genealogy to fit the pattern. Actually I thought I had made it clear that both genealogies could be of Joseph and I would still be perfectly happy. I see the Mary reading as possible but not strictly necessary. And how does this say anything about whether the virgin birth really happened or not? If Paul, Mark, or John had given alternate accounts of Christ's parentage and birth, then you would have a real contradiction and something worth noting. Not mentioning the story doesn't indicate anything, really. Mark and John chose a logical starting point - the beginning of Jesus' ministry - and Paul didn't reiterate stories his audience already knew.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 13, 2007 13:04:38 GMT -4
Can someone please tie this into whether or not it provides evidence for the existance of Jesus, or am I in too much of a hurry? I'm with you on that. This whole debate on the genealogies doesn't really tie in to the suposed subject of the thread. wdmundt doesn't believe the bible is reliable because it describes miracles, not because of perceived inconsistancies in Christ's genealogies. The whole debate on the genealogies is really a tangent.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 13, 2007 13:11:55 GMT -4
Uh, sorry Jason -- where did I say that?
Uh, sorry again, Jason -- when all we have to go on is writings of unknown authorship written at an unknown time in an unknown place, all we can do is examine the text.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 13, 2007 13:20:50 GMT -4
Uh, sorry Jason -- where did I say that? You haven't said it in so many words, but it's become rather obvious. Tell me I'm wrong. The virgin birth, water into wine, feeding a multitude of 5,000 with 5 loves and 2 fishes, healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, walking on water, raising the dead, and Jesus' own resurrection. Isn't your disbelief in those miracles really the reason you count the Bible as unreliable?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 13, 2007 14:39:25 GMT -4
Arguing about miracles seems pointless, unless you can show that one or more of the miracles actually happened. I haven't said anything about miracles.
It has been claimed that many deities have performed amazing miracles during the last few thousands of years. All the other miracles were fiction. Why should I believe these miracles to be true?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 13, 2007 14:43:21 GMT -4
It has been claimed that many deities have performed amazing miracles during the last few thousands of years. All the other miracles were fiction. Why should I believe these miracles to be true? Is that a yes or a no? It sounds a lot like "no I don't believe in the miracles described in the Bible, and yes, that is why I discount it as unreliable" to me.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 13, 2007 14:51:19 GMT -4
I don't discount the Bible because of the miracles it claims, no. I discount it because history is rife with gods who were not, in fact, gods. I see no reason to believe that the God of the Bible is any different.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 13, 2007 14:55:19 GMT -4
I don't discount the Bible because of the miracles it claims, no. I discount it because history is rife with gods who were not, in fact, gods. I see no reason to believe that the God of the Bible is any different. How is this any different than saying "no, I don't believe the miracles described in the New Testament actually occured"?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 13, 2007 15:03:52 GMT -4
Of course I don't believe the miracles of the New Testament. That has nothing to do with why I don't believe the book to be true, however. I have never made any case about any part of the Bible based on discounting miracles.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 13, 2007 15:10:05 GMT -4
Of course I don't believe the miracles of the New Testament.] Hallelujah! Finally a straight answer! I was beginning to think you were too afraid that I had some rhetorical trap prepared to ever answer me with a simple yes or no. But it's pretty obvious that this is the reason you don't believe it is true, whether you have made the case or not. That makes an argument about genealogies a bit disingenuous on your part. Your real beef is with the virgin birth, not whether the lists contain or do not contain specific names like Coniah and Mary.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 13, 2007 15:11:55 GMT -4
I guess my next question should be, do you believe in God? Because frankly, if you don't, there's no point in arguing about whether Jesus really existed or not.
|
|