|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 4, 2007 21:09:47 GMT -4
I do. And I don't hate the mention of other historical figures, I just don't want my ignorance of the details of what we know of them to somehow cloud this debate. I'm all for someone making a case that the evidence for Alexander is the same as it is for Jesus. I just don't know why I should be the one to prove or disprove that case.
I hope the mere mention of Alexander doesn't derail our current subject, which is the genealogies.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 4, 2007 21:12:29 GMT -4
EDIT- Question: Couldn't the Bible be considered as evidence, but not necessarily as conclusive evidence? Apparently wdmundt doesn't think there's any difference between the two, a point we've argued over at some length already.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 4, 2007 21:25:09 GMT -4
For those interested, I've found an Interliner Greek-English New Testament online at: www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htmSearch the Bible online: www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htmIf anyone knows of a link to a good New Testament Greek / English Dictionary, please let me know. Oh, and also a link to a good New Testament Greek Lexicon. I could check stuff a lot quicker than pulling out all the books. But on the other hand, there's something about books that I really like.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 4, 2007 21:44:02 GMT -4
I think we should be very careful of things that are offered as a "inconclusive evidence." If some inconclusive evidence is good, and more is better -- when do we have overwhelming inconclusive evidence? Never. Inconclusive means just that.
There is often a rush to judge something as true, because so many things are assumed to be true about the general subject of this argument. So I think that we need to be careful in declaring a thing evidence, yes. We can, I think, come to an agreement on whether a thing carries any evidentiary value.
I was probably too harsh in shooting down the extra-biblical evidence on the other thread. Honestly, though, I wasn't presenting any new arguments. I will say, however, if anyone thinks we need to revisit the extra-biblical sources, let's start a new thread and do it there.
I think we should continue with the genealogies.
edited for clarification
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 4, 2007 22:21:12 GMT -4
Okay. Then my opinion of geneologies is this: Matthew and Luke did the best they could to connect Jesus to the Davidic line. Matthew traced the lineage through Joseph back to David. Luke might have done the same thing, but can be interpreted as tracing Mary's lineage by reading the line as: And himself was Jesus beginning about thirty years (being the son as it was being thought of Joseph) the son of Heli, The problem being that Mary is not even mentioned in between Jesus and Heli, but you would have to presume that Mary is the mother of Jesus and the daughter of Heli. Maybe women weren't considered important enough to mention in the bloodline?
If Matthew was tracing Josephs line, and Luke was tracing Mary's, there would be differences between the lines. But the question you asked before is a good one - why would Matthew trace Jesus to David through Joseph? Maybe custom would dictate that he go through the male line, a good possibility. The Gospel of Mark starts out with the baptism of Jesus by John, and leaves out everything from His birth to that point does he not? Maybe he felt that if he didn't know anything for sure he wasn't going to write it. Mark is also considered by most scholars as the earliest Gospel written.
Eusebius of Caesarea wrote:
This, too, the presbyter used to say. ‘Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord’s sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter’s. Peter used to adapt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord’s sayings, so that Mark was quite justified in writing down some of the things as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only – to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it. I think I'll read Mark's gospel over the next few nights to get a better idea of his writings.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 4, 2007 23:36:19 GMT -4
Right. Luke is providing a genealogy that connects the family to the house of David -- it seems unlikely that he would have forgotten to make it clear that the first link in the chain was Mary. It appears that both Matthew and Luke are providing genealogies through Joseph. Both say Joseph.
Why would either of them do this?
Hmmm.
|
|
|
Post by cr on Sept 5, 2007 1:22:02 GMT -4
Just a quick follow-up to Jason's reply, which quoted the film "Enemy Mine." I've used that quote ("Truth is Truth") since I first saw that film in the 1980's, but ironically, I rarely use it in a religious sense. (By the way, just three days ago, I watched that film for the first time in years. Strange coincidence, that.) Anyway, back to the genealogy discussion...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 5, 2007 11:00:48 GMT -4
Just a quick follow-up to Jason's reply, which quoted the film "Enemy Mine." I've used that quote ("Truth is Truth") since I first saw that film in the 1980's, but ironically, I rarely use it in a religious sense. (By the way, just three days ago, I watched that film for the first time in years. Strange coincidence, that.) Anyway, back to the genealogy discussion... Interesting. Since they're discussing the Drac equivelent of the Bible in that quote and talking about universal religious truth I'm curious how you would use it outside of its religious context. I brought it up in part because I found Enemy Mine in the bargin bin at my local grocery store a few months back and snapped it up. It's not a perfect movie, but it's pretty good.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 5, 2007 11:11:33 GMT -4
Why would either of them do this? Because by Jewish law Jesus was Joseph's son. Therefore if Joseph is descended from the line of David Jesus is his heir, and fufills the prophecies that the Messiah would come from the line of David. The Gospel of John also begins at Jesus' baptism. It's an obvious starting point for a book about Jesus, as that is when Jesus began teaching. Also John was a disciple of John the Baptist, and this was the point at which he met Jesus (described in John 1:35 - note that John says two disciples of John the Baptist heard him declare that Jesus was the Messiah, and identifies one of them as Andrew - the other was probably John himself), so again it's an obvious starting point.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 5, 2007 11:57:44 GMT -4
Could the Messiah be not of the blood line of David?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 5, 2007 12:20:36 GMT -4
Could the Messiah be not of the blood line of David? That would leave Isaiah 9:1-7, 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-8, and 33:15-16, among others, unfulfilled.
|
|
|
Post by cr on Sept 5, 2007 14:41:18 GMT -4
Just a quick follow-up to Jason's reply, which quoted the film "Enemy Mine." I've used that quote ("Truth is Truth") since I first saw that film in the 1980's, but ironically, I rarely use it in a religious sense. (By the way, just three days ago, I watched that film for the first time in years. Strange coincidence, that.) Anyway, back to the genealogy discussion... Interesting. Since they're discussing the Drac equivelent of the Bible in that quote and talking about universal religious truth I'm curious how you would use it outside of its religious context. I brought it up in part because I found Enemy Mine in the bargin bin at my local grocery store a few months back and snapped it up. It's not a perfect movie, but it's pretty good. Yes, I like that film, too. Regarding Truth, I realize that the characters were discussing it in a religious sense. However, I believe that "If one receives evil from another, let one not do evil in return; rather, let him extend love to the enemy, that love might unite them" can apply in any case, with or without religion. Being good to one another isn't a virtue exclusive to Enemy Mine's Shizmaah (sp?), Christianity's Jesus, nor any religion, real or imagined. It's a virtue ultimately shared by (though not always practiced by) all, and is beneficial in the survival of not only the individual or group, but all of humanity. That single quote, by the way, isn't necessarily the only Truth about existence. I think there are many truths depending upon context. "Truth is thruth" (with a small 't'), regardless of the source. For example, from a scientific standpoint, facts proven to be correct are correct, regardless of which individual or group proves them correct. That's how I apply it in a non-religious way.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 5, 2007 15:07:50 GMT -4
Regarding Truth, I realize that the characters were discussing it in a religious sense. However, I believe that "If one receives evil from another, let one not do evil in return; rather, let him extend love to the enemy, that love might unite them" can apply in any case, with or without religion. Being good to one another isn't a virtue exclusive to Enemy Mine's Shizmaah (sp?), Christianity's Jesus, nor any religion, real or imagined. It's a virtue ultimately shared by (though not always practiced by) all, and is beneficial in the survival of not only the individual or group, but all of humanity. But without the religious context it's no longer "Truth" - it's just one suggested course of action among many. Without any absolute sense of what is moral and what isn't there is no reason to prefer uniting enemies in love over destroying them if it is as easy or easier to destroy them. That what I thought you might have meant, and I agree with the idea that facts don't depend on who believes them.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 5, 2007 16:54:48 GMT -4
So, about those genealogies in Matthew and Luke... can we agree that they both actually start with Joseph?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 5, 2007 16:57:45 GMT -4
So, about those genealogies in Matthew and Luke... can we agree that they both actually start with Joseph? Nope. EDIT: To expand a bit on that, I think Ginnie showed earlier that it is quite possible that Luke was in fact tracing the genealogy through Mary rather than Joseph. It may seem a little odd to us that he didn't specifically mention Mary then, but possible.
|
|