ultima said:
DaRev said:
ultima said:
You haven't read my answers to Happydolphin, or there's something clearly wrong with you. Here, let me summarize. Mary isn't mentioned anywhere in that chapter of Luke. In fact, it clearly states that Jesus, was (as supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, etc. (paraphrased KJV). Your explanation is clearly not consistent with the words of the book.
Also, your assumption that Theophilus was a Roman (or Greek) dignitary is unbacked. Hence, your different audience argument is not backed up by anything. Your facts versus tradition argument is also very weak. So what, Matthew's account of Jesus's life is not factual, but just a description of some tradition?
Also, I wrote this out especially for you: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=5551747.
|
1) First paragraph, I’m not going to go into ancient Jewish legal right, heirship, and lineage with you, mainly because I have no desire to. If you cannot accept that the Gospels of the NT, i.e Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are written to complement each other and give a better, more complete picture of the SAME story, then we need not discuss anything more. You are supposed to marry the genealogy in Matthew with that in Luke, to give a better, more accurate picture of Jesus’ lineage. I’m not sure why you can’t accept that.
2) Second Paragraph, My FACT v TRADITION argument is supported if you would take the time to study (not literally) both books. For example, Luke 3:1 gives details such as: “Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene.” Such was important to the Roman reader more so than it was to a Jewish reader.
To further prove the different styles and audiences throughout the NT, Luke also wrote the book of Acts, which gives a completely different style of writing, as that book is more concern with HISTORY of the church i.e. after Jesus died. If read with other books, e.g. Paul’s writings, Acts compliments them and gives a fuller more complete picture of the HISTORY of the early Church. If you can’t accept Acts as a book of HISTORICAL events, then this is a futile discussion.
In any event, the fact remains that there is detail that you find in Luke that you wouldn’t necessarily find in the other Gospels. Throughout the book of Luke the style of writing leads to the conclusion that Luke was more concerned with FACTs of the day and of the Story of Jesus rather than the Jewish traditions that surrounded it. That’s why Luke was not concerned about the FACT that Joseph was not Jesus natural father, but he was more concerned with the FACT of who his natural mother was (I guess as it could be proven), hence the recording of Mary’s family line instead of Joseph’s.
3) I’ll get back to your link – sorry long day at work.
|
@bold: So if I cannot accept a dubious claim, then we need not discuss anything?
@italicized: So if I cannot accept another dubious claim, then the discussion is futile? Acts starts with a story of resurrection and flight of Jesus into the sky. How is anyone supposed to accept that as a historical fact?
Look, let's say you are right about different audiences/purposes. It does not change the words of the book. The words of the book clearly and unambiguously state that the genealogy presented in Luke is that of Joseph.
|
@bold: There is an estimated 7,021,836,029 Christians in the world, who accept those claims. Thus, I don’t see why I have to go proving the matter to you. You either accept it or you don’t.
@italicized: Because you haven’t read the other 27 chapters, over 1,000 other verses, neither the over 20,000 other words. That’s why you don’t know and, thus, can’t accept it as a book of historical fact of the church. But, you don’t have to waste your time reading it – as I said above, other people have already done the research, so go look it up for yourself online and see what other people say the book of Acts is.
Now were getting somewhere. Ok, I would concede that Luke could have been a bit clearer on the matter. However, what Luke does say, i.e. that Jesus “being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph”, infers that it was not Joseph’s true lineage. The NIV translation of the bible puts it this way, “so it was thought” that Jesus was the son of Joseph.
Remember, Luke is concerned with the FACTS, so if Luke is accepting that Joseph is NOT the natural father of Jesus, then he wouldn’t count or record his lineage. Remember, Luke is dealing with just what he holds to be the facts and eyewitness accounts. Therefore, Luke did not ‘suppose’ that Mary was Jesus’ Mother – he accepted that as a fact. Therefore, he would have recorded Mary’s lineage, not Joseph’s, as he could be sure about Mary’s parental claim to Jesus, but not Joseph’s – and more so, Luke’s readers probably wouldn’t have accepted a supposition either.
In any event, I agree that Luke probably should have just said ‘Mary daughter of Heli’ 
, but that’s not the way things worked back then.
