With bafflement upon bafflement!

[Redemptionsong]

We've discussed this already here on the thread. I will bring it again:
John 8:48-49:
48 The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan(A) and demon-possessed?” 49 "I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me.Jesus only denies being possessed by demons. He doesn't deny being a Samaritan.
Thoughts?

It is clear from Jesus' ministry in Galilee, and elsewhere, that demon spirits were cast out of many different people. I suggest that by disassociating demons from Samaritans he was actually making this point. Maybe it was his accusers who actually had the demon spirits!

 

[Redemptionsong]

What testimony? The gospels are not written by eye witnesses. They were written decades after Jesus by non-Jews who had never even met Jesus, but who were trying to gather together all the legends about him. Most of the gospels are written by more than one person, in more than one phase. For example, the synoptic gospels use the Q document as a source, and John is built around an original document on the seven signs. There is so much legend added to history, that you can never possibly know exactly what Jesus did and said.

This is absolute nonsense, and l don't know where you got it from!

Maybe you could reveal to me who you think did write the Gospels, Acts, epistles, and Revelation?

 

[Harel13]

I disagree with this conclusion.

Where is the contradiction?

This is from Wikipedia. The sections in red are the ones that don't match up. Yes, I've heard the ideas that one depicts Mary's genealogy and the other Joseph's. The fact of the matter is, however, that Mary is simply not mentioned here. And, strangely, Luke presents Shealtiel as the son of Neri, not Jeconiah. Both, by the way, skip Pedayah.

Had Jesus been a Samaritan then there would be a record of him visiting the temple at Mount Gerizim, rebuilt by Herod the Great, and with its own priesthood. There is no such record. Instead, we have many records of Jesus ministering in Jerusalem, and in the temple.

Of course there's no record of this. There hasn't been a temple on Mt. Gerizzim since it was destroyed by John Hyrcanus in the 2nd century BCE...
They did continue to worship there, though, in the open air.

It's not just one verse 'here or there', it's the whole context of Jesus' ministry. In John 1:11 it says, 'He came unto his own, and his own received him not'.

Who were 'his own'? Was Jesus rejected at Mount Gerizim, or in Jerusalem?

Both. He started with the Samaritans and that didn't work out. ""converted"" to Judaism and tried with the Jews and that also didn't work out.
Again, I don't know how much research you've done on the Samaritans, but in the final decades of the Second Temple and in the mishnaic era, the lines between Jews and Samaritans were a little more blurred than later years in a number of aspects. That's why I'm not talking about conversion in the traditional sense of the word.

It is clear from Jesus' ministry in Galilee, and elsewhere, that demon spirits were cast out of many different people. I suggest that by disassociating demons from Samaritans he was actually making this point.

And that point was?

 

[pearl]

a. The genealogies contradict each other.

Yes, they do, as they are both a theological construction.

 

[Harel13]

Yes, they do, as they are both a theological construction.

What idea(s) do you think they intend to represent?

 

[pearl]

Jesus only denies being possessed by demons. He doesn't deny being a Samaritan.
Thoughts?

It equates Samaritans with demons, another translation, Samaritans interest in magical powers.

 

[pearl]

What idea(s) do you think they intend to represent?

Obviously, one, Jesus lineage back to David, the other Jesus back to Adam. For what ever reason Matthrew brings on the ladies in his account, the four who have, in their own unusual way, played a significant role in Hebrew Scripture.

 

[Redemptionsong]

This is from Wikipedia. The sections in red are the ones that don't match up. Yes, I've heard the ideas that one depicts Mary's genealogy and the other Joseph's. The fact of the matter is, however, that Mary is simply not mentioned here. And, strangely, Luke presents Shealtiel as the son of Neri, not Jeconiah. Both, by the way, skip Pedayah.

If we're to discuss this seriously, then it's important to establish whose line is depicted in each of the two Gospels.

There can be little doubt that Matthew's genealogy is that of Joseph's ancestors in the royal line, from David through Solomon. Mary is only mentioned in the genealogy as being the wife of Joseph; it is Joseph who is the subject of verse 16: 'And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Interestingly, Joseph then becomes the subject of Matthew ch.1, verses 18-25.

Are we agreed that Matthew's genealogy must relate to Joseph?

Then we move to Luke. Luke's genealogy only diverges from Matthew's after David. It's quite clear that there is no inconsistency up until that point. We know, however, that David had a number of sons [2 Samuel 5:14]; Solomon and Nathan being just two. We also know that Solomon was the son who became king, and belonged to the royal line.

Now, the divergence at this point is clearly no mistake. It is quite evident that a different son of David is followed in Luke's Gospel. This son, Nathan, was not of the royal line, although he was a son of David.

This is not a minor point. It means that the subject of the genealogy in Luke is not the same subject as in the genealogy of Matthew. Luke is not providing us with the genealogy of Joseph, whose royal line is clearly depicted in Matthew.

So, the conclusion must be that Luke is providing us with Mary's genealogy. And this fits with the manner in which Luke recounts the events. In Luke 1 and 2 the whole focus is upon Mary, with the concluding words of Luke 2:51 being, 'but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart'.

Can we, therefore, proceed in the knowledge that Luke is referring to Mary's genealogy?

 

[Harel13]

Can we, therefore, proceed in the knowledge that Luke is referring to Mary's genealogy?

Why ever would we do that? Luke is very clear that the end of the line we find Jacob, who fathered Joseph, who fathered Jesus. No Mary about it.

 

[dybmh]

Gentile believers were not required to be circumcised in the flesh, only the heart.

Ezekiel 44:9 ?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Both. He started with the Samaritans and that didn't work out. ""converted"" to Judaism and tried with the Jews and that also didn't work out.
Again, I don't know how much research you've done on the Samaritans, but in the final decades of the Second Temple and in the mishnaic era, the lines between Jews and Samaritans were a little more blurred than later years in a number of aspects. That's why I'm not talking about conversion in the traditional sense of the word.

I guess it will all fade into irrelevance if it can be shown that Jesus was, indeed, the Anointed One!

 

[Redemptionsong]

Ezekiel 44:9 ?

That was under the old covenant. This is made clear in Ezekiel 44:7.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Why ever would we do that? Luke is very clear that the end of the line we find Jacob, who fathered Joseph, who fathered Jesus. No Mary about it.

Well, whose genealogy do you think it is? Given that Matthew's genealogy clearly relates to Joseph.

No genealogist, no matter how bad, is going to make that number of blunders!

 

[Harel13]

Well, whose genealogy do you think it is? Given that Matthew's genealogy clearly relates to Joseph.

No genealogist, no matter how bad, is going to make that number of blunders!

Are those blunders or simply different traditions? Luke had one tradition about Jesus's lineage and Matthew had another.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Why ever would we do that? Luke is very clear that the end of the line we find Jacob, who fathered Joseph, who fathered Jesus. No Mary about it.

Can I ask you to look at a Greek interlinear wording of this genealogy?

Tell me, in Luke, do the words 'the son' appear between Joseph and Heli?

Then, to confirm things, does Matthew [1:16] say 'Jacob begat Joseph' in the Greek?

 

[Harel13]

Can I ask you to look at a Greek interlinear wording of this genealogy?

Tell me, in Luke, do the words 'the son' appear between Joseph and Heli?

Then, to confirm things, does Matthew [1:16] say 'Jacob begat Joseph' in the Greek?

Well, I stand corrected. But there's still no 'Mary' about Luke's genealogy.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Well, I stand corrected. But there's still no 'Mary' about Luke's genealogy.

There's no 'Mary' because women do not feature in a paternal line! Instead, they run the line through Mary's Father, Heli.

It's important not to be confused by the spelling of some of the names. For example, Jo-anna and Rhesa are both male. They are the descendants of Zerubbabel. Joanan is another name for 'John'.

 

[Harel13]

There's no 'Mary' because women do not feature in a paternal line!

Tell that to whoever wrote Chronicles.

Instead, they run the line through Mary's Father, Heli.

And that jumps to Mary's husband? No, sorry. That doesn't make sense.

It's important not to be confused by the spelling of some of the names. For example, Jo-anna and Rhesa are both male. They are the descendants of Zerubbabel. Joanan is another name for 'John'.

No kidding.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

As dybmh has argued, God is Lord over heaven and earth. I agree.

I have long believed that scripture is written as a parable, presenting the earthly alongside the heavenly. If one applies this to all Hebrew scripture then Hosea 11:1 has two meanings, not one. There is the earthly, temporal meaning, and there is the heavenly, or spiritual meaning.

What you are telling me is that Jewish scholars are only prepared to consider the earthly interpretion, not the heavenly.

What is important is to interpret the Bible the way it was intended, and not superimpose meanings that are not there.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This is absolute nonsense, and l don't know where you got it from!

Maybe you could reveal to me who you think did write the Gospels, Acts, epistles, and Revelation?

We don't know who the actual authors were. Here are some links to help further your education on the subject:

Q source - Wikipedia

Book of Signs - Wikipedia