Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-30-2014, 06:49 PM
 
30,907 posts, read 32,869,471 times
Reputation: 26919

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alt Thinker View Post
That would mean both genealogies are wrong. This is compatible with my idea that the two genealogies were each created by the respective authors for their own particular purposes.
In addition, it would mean Jesus could not be the messiah, as the messiah is to be of the line of David.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-30-2014, 06:53 PM
 
Location: US Wilderness
1,233 posts, read 1,119,272 times
Reputation: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ View Post
In addition, it would mean Jesus could not be the messiah, as the messiah is to be of the line of David.
That is a point the two genealogies do agree on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2014, 06:05 AM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,887,131 times
Reputation: 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan View Post
That's because that's what it means. You went off on a deranged rant about the absolutely laughable Concordant Version,
See folks, this is just what I mean. Daniel has to get his digs in at all costs. If he can't present a coherent response, he has to somehow, some way, attack his opponent with meaningless banter.

Quote:
if I remember correctly, and appealed to a bunch of pseudo-academic nonsense in an attempt to support an argument you don't even understand.
See what I mean? He has to put down his opponent because he just can't seem to formulate a coherent response in a loving, meaningful way. This is a sure sign that one is frustrated.

Quote:
If I recall, I gave you the opportunity to show me you knew Greek with any facility whatsoever and you refused. Let's try again. Translate this sentence from a first year Greek grammar and parse all the verbal elements:

εἰσέλθετε εἰς ἀγορὰν δῶρα παρά γε τῶν ἀδικούντων ληφόμενοι
And now he baits and switches the argument.

Daniel, I don't mean to say this in a mean way and hope you don't take it the wrong way, but, they should have taught you in school: "No adjective, in the ancient Greek or Hebrew, can be greater than the noun from which it is derived. Since no aiwn is eternal, (the Bible says all the aiwnas/eons end), it is impossible for the adjective of aion which is aionios, to be that which pertains to eternity."

Now then, getting back to the two genealogies of Christ per my original post, It is my opinion that the writer did an excellent job in proving his point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2014, 06:16 AM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,887,131 times
Reputation: 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alt Thinker View Post
I do not know Greek and cannot say for sure what aionios means. But if the 'eternal' punishment in Matthew 25:46 is not eternal then neither is the 'eternal' life in the very same sentence.
Hello Alt Thinker. That is an age-old argument begun by Augustine.
Here is what I wrote about this:
Augustine and eternal torment


Quote:
Again I do not know Greek (and have forgotten most of the Latin I once knew) but when translating a word one way leads to such a wacky set of theological options, it seems to me that it is time to open Occam's shaving kit. Ainios really means eternal.
That is an impossibility that aionios can mean eternal if the noun from which it is derived does not mean "eternal."

Here are some examples of nouns and adjectives derived from them:

America = noun
American = adjective
Bush was the American president. His presidency was pertaining to America.

Heaven = noun
Heavenly = adjective
The heavenly angel visited Mary. The realm the angel belonged to is pertaining to Heaven.

Aion = noun
Aionios = adjective
The Greeks celebrated the aionion olympics. The games were pertaining to the Aion. Surely they didn't celebrate the eternal olympics.

Last edited by Eusebius; 10-31-2014 at 06:56 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2014, 06:16 AM
 
Location: Oregon
802 posts, read 449,917 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Elizabeth was a cousin (KJV)/ relative (CLNT) to Mary.


Elizabeth's husband, Zechariah was of Aaron. It says Elizabeth was a cousin to Mary but does not specify how near a cousin she was.

The problem you bring up concerning Mary begetting Jesus and not Joseph is brought up in the article.
RESPONSE:

No. The gospels were written in koine Greek. The koine Greek word for cousin in anepsios.

However, Luke uses the koine Greek word "suggenes" not "anepsios "

See Strong's Lesicon 4773. suggenes soong-ghen-ace' from 4862 and 1085; a relative (by blood); by extension, a fellow countryman:--cousin, kin(-sfolk, -sman).

It would include cousins and any others provided that they were blood relatives. That is an important distinction.

Please also note that Luke's genealogy has Mary descending from Nathan, not Solomon. According to II Samuel and I Chronicles, the Messiah had to be descended from BOTH David and Solomon. Nathan was never a king so never sat on the throne of Israel.

2 Samuel 7:12-16New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me.

1 Chronicles 22:9-10New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
9 See, a son shall be born to you; he shall be a man of peace. I will give him peace from all his enemies on every side; for his name shall be Solomon,[a] and I will give peace[b]and quiet to Israel in his days. 10 He shall build a house for my name. He shall be a son to me, and I will be a father to him, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.’


According to Luke, both Mary and Jesus descended from Nathan who never occupied the royal throne of Israel. It was David and Solomon that did. Thus according to Luke, Jesus did not fulfill the first requirement to be the messiah. Matthew's genealogy, however, claims Jesus was in both David's and Solomon's lineage.

Does the article you quoted make that distinction?

Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 10-31-2014 at 06:44 AM.. Reason: addition
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2014, 06:49 AM
 
Location: US Wilderness
1,233 posts, read 1,119,272 times
Reputation: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galileo2 View Post
Please also note that Luke's genealogy has Mary descending from Nathan, not Solomon. According to II Samuel the Messiah had to be descendent of BOTH David and Solomon. Nathan was never a king so never sat on the throne of Israel.
Here is the relevant passage. The son of David, whose descendant will inherit the throne, is of course King Solomon who built the First Temple.

2 Samuel
(Addressing David)
11 … “’The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’”

In my alternate hypothesis described above, this is Luke intentionally separating Jesus from Matthew’s King of the Jews theme to de-emphasize Matthew’s concentration on the strongly Jewish character of Jesus and the possible perception of a link to the Jewish Revolt. Matthew’s community were Jews who followed Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. Luke’s community were mainly Gentiles who followed Jesus as a universal savior. (This is not to imply that Matthew perceived the Jesus movement as exclusively Jewish or that Luke wanted to completely abandon the Jewish roots of the movement. It was a matter of emphasis for their immediate audiences.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2014, 06:53 AM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,887,131 times
Reputation: 1009
Luk 1:36 And lo! Elizabeth, your relative (συγγενίς), she also has conceived a son in her decrepitude, and this is the sixth month with her who is called barren,

G4773
συγγενίς
From G4862 and G1085; a relative (by blood); by extension a fellow countryman: - cousin, kin (-sfolk, -sman).
Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries

Col_4:10 Greeting you is Aristarchus, my fellow captive, and Mark, cousin (ανεψιος) of Barnabas (concerning whom you obtained directions: if he should be coming to you, receive him),

G431
ανεψιος
From G1 (as a particle of union) and an obsolete form ?????? nepos (a brood); properly akin, that is, (specifically) a cousin: - sister’s son.
Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2014, 07:00 AM
 
Location: Oxford, England
1,266 posts, read 1,237,338 times
Reputation: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
See folks, this is just what I mean. Daniel has to get his digs in at all costs. If he can't present a coherent response, he has to somehow, some way, attack his opponent with meaningless banter.
It's not meaningless. Anyone who wants to see that exchange can start at post #217 here. Your attempt to defend that pseudo-academic nonsense failed on absolutely all fronts, yet you continued to bloviate about your own intellectual superiority. I'm not required to show deference to a laughably amateur and uninformed position just in the interest of not hurting feelings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
See what I mean? He has to put down his opponent because he just can't seem to formulate a coherent response in a loving, meaningful way. This is a sure sign that one is frustrated.
And this silly attempt at ad hominem does not make my actual points vanish into thin air.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
And now he baits and switches the argument.
No, I'm just demonstrating that you have absolutely no grounds whatsoever on which to assert your understanding of Greek. You simply don't know the language.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Daniel, I don't mean to say this in a mean way and hope you don't take it the wrong way, but, they should have taught you in school: "No adjective, in the ancient Greek or Hebrew, can be greater than the noun from which it is derived. Since no aiwn is eternal, (the Bible says all the aiwnas/eons end), it is impossible for the adjective of aion which is aionios, to be that which pertains to eternity."
No, because that has nothing at all to do with Greek or with linguistics or philology more generally. That's a dogmatic and an ignorant attempt to infuse quantity and value judgments into lexicography, which is utterly asinine. You have no grounds on which to make any assertions whatsoever on how Greek is or should be taught. You know absolutely nothing at all about the language.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Now then, getting back to the two genealogies of Christ per my original post, It is my opinion that the writer did an excellent job in proving his point.
I've already explained why that is not true. You've not responded to a word of that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2014, 07:16 AM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,887,131 times
Reputation: 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan View Post
It's not meaningless. Anyone who wants to see that exchange can start at post #217 here. Your attempt to defend that pseudo-academic nonsense failed on absolutely all fronts, yet you continued to bloviate about your own intellectual superiority. I'm not required to show deference to a laughably amateur and uninformed position just in the interest of not hurting feelings.



And this silly attempt at ad hominem does not make my actual points vanish into thin air.



No, I'm just demonstrating that you have absolutely no grounds whatsoever on which to assert your understanding of Greek. You simply don't know the language.



No, because that has nothing at all to do with Greek or with linguistics or philology more generally. That's a dogmatic and an ignorant attempt to infuse quantity and value judgments into lexicography, which is utterly asinine. You have no grounds on which to make any assertions whatsoever on how Greek is or should be taught. You know absolutely nothing at all about the language.



I've already explained why that is not true. You've not responded to a word of that.
Dear readers, let us let Daniel's posts show us how not to exchange with one another.
Let us be civil with one another and post in genuine love and decency even if others cannot control their emotions.


Daniel, no adjective in Greek or Hebrew can be greater than the noun from which it is derived. It is impossible for Olam in Hebrew, in its adjectival form to be "unending" or "eternal" since its noun form never carries the idea of unending or eternal.
Also the Greek speaking Jews translated the Hebrew into Greek, called the LXX (Septuagint) and translated Olam in its noun form as "AIWN" and adjectival form as "AIWNIOC."

It is likewise impossible for AIWNIOC to be eternal since the noun AIWN from which it is derived never has the idea of "unending" or "eternal." Even when AIWN is used in its plural form with a genitive case such as: "αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων" i.e. "eons of the eons" it is rather telling us of future eons which are the greatest eons of all the eons which went before. The greatest eons of all the eons which went before are the millennial future eon and the new earth eon which comes after that.

Also we have this phrase: "αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων" which is "the eon of the eons." Again, we have a future eon, which is the final eon, which is the greatest eon of all the eons which went before: the new earth eon.

Now, getting back to the two genealogies: Why would the writers of the "Gospels" give wrong genealogies of Christ to prove He was their Messiah if they knew their genealogies would prove He was not?

Last edited by mensaguy; 10-31-2014 at 07:23 AM.. Reason: As you all well know, RED is reserved for Moderator comments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2014, 07:42 AM
 
Location: Oxford, England
1,266 posts, read 1,237,338 times
Reputation: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Dear readers, let us let Daniel's posts show us how not to exchange with one another.
Let us be civil with one another and post in genuine love and decency even if others cannot control their emotions.

I'm happy to do this, provided there's reciprocation. I don't consider an amateur lecturing me about my profession to be reciprocation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Daniel, no adjective in Greek or Hebrew can be greater than the noun from which it is derived.
"Greater" in what sense? Can you provide a peer-reviewed publication that shows this? Can you argue this claim yourself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
It is impossible for Olam in Hebrew, in its adjectival form to be "unending" or "eternal" since its noun form never carries the idea of unending or eternal.
That's not an actual principle of lexicography or semantics. That's actually a rather absurd example of the etymological fallacy. Adjectives mean whatever people use them to mean. Pretending the root of an adjective exercises any restrictive control over its "greatness" or semantic extent is absolutely laughable. There is no mystical or metaphysical power that inhibits people from using adjectives in ways that exceed the semantic range of their roots, or that confounds one from understanding such a usage in a context that demands it. That's just utter and complete nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Also the Greek speaking Jews translated the Hebrew into Greek, called the LXX (Septuagint) and translated Olam in its noun form as "AIWN" and adjectival form as "AIWNIOC."

It is likewise impossible for AIWNIOC to be eternal since the noun AIWN from which it is derived never has the idea of "unending" or "eternal." Even when AIWN is used in its plural form with a genitive case such as: "αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων" i.e. "eons of the eons" it is rather telling us of future eons which are the greatest eons of all the eons which went before. The greatest eons of all the eons which went before are the millennial future eon and the new earth eon which comes after that.

Also we have this phrase: "αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων" which is "the eon of the eons." Again, we have a future eon, which is the final eon, which is the greatest eon of all the eons which went before: the new earth eon.
You're just saying the same thing over and over again, and it's simply not true at all, as I explained above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Now, getting back to the two genealogies: Why would the writers of the "Gospels" give wrong genealogies of Christ to prove He was their Messiah if they knew their genealogies would prove He was not?
That's a loaded question. They knew no such thing, and their genealogies are products of their rhetorical goals as well as their literary genre and background.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top