Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The reason I use YLT is because it doesn't add or remove words. In other words, no manipulation on my part. The translation you use does. But tell me, what makes my reasoning twisted, and yours not so much?
Because you're adding words. The name Mary doesn't occur in Luke 3:23, and there's no reason whatsoever to conclude that Mary was implied. Only by twisting can you find Mary in that verse.
If you read the genealogies from Luke, and then from Matthew, you will see that they are significantly different.
They both start off from Joseph, so we know it is the father's genealogy. However, after Joseph, not much matches between the two.
Luke 3:23-38
Matthew 1:1-17
Could it be that at least one of them was a blind attempt at just relating Jesus to David?
everyone has two geneologies
Your mother and father each come from two different families (hopefully), and these two different families have a family tree. Jesus had a mother who's family was of one tree, and his 'father' was of a different family tree....unless you think Mary and Joseph were brother and sister :cover:
No laptop yet Sleeppy? That ok, I understand.
sleepy said:The reason I use YLT is because it doesn't add or remove words. In other words, no manipulation on my part.
sleepy said:The translation you use does. But tell me, what makes my reasoning twisted, and yours not so much?
Luke 3:23 said:23 And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph,
24 the [son] of Eli, the [son] of Matthat, the [son] of Levi, the [son] of Melchi, the [son] of Janna, the [son] of Joseph,
Sleepy said:Actually, David's blood is needed.. Which both Mary and Joseph had. And as these were Jesus' parents, so did Jesus.
Luke 1:27 said:to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.
Luke 1:5 said:His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
What's the point of having a family tree for Joseph? Why would Luke go through all that trouble listing Joseph's line if it didn't really matter? Why does being a stepdad have any bearing whatsoever?
because the Messiah was foretold to arrive through the family line of King David and when the Messiah was first introduced to the jews of his day, they did not comprehend that Jesus was originally a spirit in heaven....they only saw him as the son of Joseph and Mary.
And both Mary and Joseph could trace their family line to King David. So it helped to solidify his claim of being the Messiah.
It doesn't matter if Joseph traces his family line to King David, that's the point. There's absolutely no reason to assume that the person who raised him as the Stepfather who wasn't blood related to him would be of any note to be related to King David. Only if he was actually related to King David. Him being originally a Spirit in Heaven has nothing to do with it.
Luke's inclusion of Joseph's geneology, when read objectively free of any retrospective theological inventions, clearly implies that the original intent was of no virgin birth.
I am not talking JUST about the translation. I'm talking about your interpretation on context, which is a manipulation of the context on your part.
When you add or change the context of a passage or two through interpretation, like saying that the genealogy (Luke 3:23-38) belonged to Mary instead of Joseph, even though Mary is not mentioned at all in this part of the chapter, then it is damn well a MANIPULATION.
I don't see how it cannot be manipulating the text.*
Did you bother to even read the 4 translations that I posted?
Each one clearly indicated that Heli is Joseph's father...according to Luke's version of Jesus' supposed genealogy. Even the YLT provided square brackets enclosing the word "son".
It is no way indicating that Jesus' fathers were Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melchi, etc, etc. The genealogy start with Joseph, being the son of Heli, and naming each predecessor, generation after generation.
So clearly, Joseph was Heli's son. No where in Luke's lineage included Mary, and clearly doesn't say that Mary was Heli's daughter.
Why would Luke go from Joseph in 3:23*and then jump to Mary's line?
Mary's line is non-existent in this gospel. Mary's parents were never mention in any of the gospels or epistles; their names were never given. And since Mary's father is never named, it is impossible to her lineage. So you are manipulating the genealogy.
You had stated that she was from the House of David in a previous post:
Although it could be saying that Jesus or Joseph being of the house of David and therefore they each could be called "son of David", I don't think so. Luke 3:23-38 is a genealogy, so it is naming each son-father - generation after generation, going back all the back to Adam.*
In any case, how do you know she was of David's blood?*
The gospel(s) never explicitly named her father. And the gospel never stated anywhere, what tribe or house she (Mary) was in, because her father remained nameless in the New Testament.*
Luke only stated that she was engaged to Joseph, who was of the House of David (Luke 1:27):
[QUOTE1:27]to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgins name was Mary.
Luke makes the statement "as the opinion was" when he speaks of Joseph being the father. If he thought Joseph was the father, why would he include these words??
Anyway, his gospel clearly says that Jesus was the son of God... so its not like he thought Jesus was Josephs real son. He's really clarifying what the jews actually thought about Jesus and they would have needed proof that 'both' his parents were of the Davidic line.
Luke makes the statement "as the opinion was" when he speaks of Joseph being the father. If he thought Joseph was the father, why would he include these words??
[/QUOTE]Anyway, his gospel clearly says that Jesus was the son of God... so its not like he thought Jesus was Josephs real son. He's really clarifying what the jews actually thought about Jesus and they would have needed proof that 'both' his parents were of the Davidic line.
I have suspected that this word for "Supposed" would as well as the accounts have been interpolated
Son of God can mean a lot of things.
Either way, we can't escape that the Lineage of Joseph is otherwise completely useless in the case of the Virgin Birth.
We also see that there was a tradition dating back to what was likely the very early known "Acts of Pilate" that Joseph was the real father.
How interesting that John and Mark didn't feel it was important enough to mention. Or Paul. Or anyone else. Not only that how early Christians viewed Jesus divinity early on was wide and varied.
The different books all giver different interpretations and place when Jesus received his divinity at different times.
All the way into the second century real Jews had viewed him fully human.
Hellenistic Judaism/christians viewed him as Divine and Human
And some fully Divine like Marcion.
Some placed Jesus Divinity at birth, others at baptism, and yet others not until resurrection.
And scripture contradicts itself with this from one book to the other.
"son of god" was term given to mortal emperors just before Jesus was even born and taken by the authors while competing Jesus divinity with that of the living Emperor.
sleepy said:Read Luke from the beginning, until you reach the genealogy. That's your context.
sleepy said:Luke says Jesus was born of the virgin, Mary, and would have the throne of His father, David.
Luke 1:32-33 said:32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
Luke 1:27 said:to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.
sleepy said:But then tries to say Joseph was his father? That might make sense to you, and make what I'm saying seem like some type of manipulation, but I'm getting to the point where I don't even care what you think. Thanks.
I don't think Jesus was ever viewed as "Divine" in the sense of being God Himself by Hellenist Jewish Christians, only "Divine" in the sense of being the incarnation of the Logos or "A god", which was the case with the early Jewish Gnostic Christians at the very least. The trinity seems to have been denied by the Nazarenes and Ebionites well into the later centuries of early Christianity.
I also don't think Marcion viewed him as fully divine either, but I don't know enough about his beliefs specifically, it was around Tertullian's time that the Trinity became a widespread concept so it could have been around Marcion's time but probably not much earlier.
But yes, "Son of God" does not refer to being the literal Son of God. The idea of him being of Virgin Birth was obviously a later addition that probably developed outside of Jewish Circles around Justin Martyr's time. As many scholars in early 20th century agreed, the Virgin Birth account was likely interpolated, and I'd guess it was around the same time as his "Divine" status was in development, perhaps even during Luke's time.