Posted on 12/07/2011 7:00:15 PM PST by rzman21
>> “and after you get through with that irreconcilable error,” <<
It sounds like you’ve already made up your mind to reject any answer. It certainly is not an ERROR, because, by the word-for-word reliance of Luke on Matthew in other parts of his gospel, we know for certain that Luke could have easily made certain his lineage matched Matthew’s.
>> Josephs linage is a joke. <<
Joseph’s lineage would hardly be a joke to the Jews to whom the gospels were written. Matthew uses the lineage to completely upend social convention, tracing through the royal descendants of Israel, with each name representing just how far mankind has fallen... and then in a shocking twist, making this veritable history of the Chosen Race (tm) noteworthy only insofar as “Joseph, was the Husband of Mary.” At several points, in fact, he goes out of his way to demonstrate that Jesus, while predominantly Jewish, was no “purebred” Jew, but in fact, the greatest of his ancestors were born of mixed blood. Luke’s lineage, on the other hand, is based not on legal inheritance, but likely Joseph’s biological lineage.
>> If Failure to worship the Bible and Mary is a sin <<
Worship, in the sense of adoration, of Mary would be a sin. Even Catholics merely venerate her.
>> are we not forgiven of our sin ? <<
We are, if we repent of it. If we adamantly refuse repentance or conversion, than Christ will not force repentance or conversion upon us.
>> Is the Bible wrong? <<
No, but you must be willing to understand the bible properly. If you presume it wrong (as you seem to in your labeling of the lineages as “irreconcilable ERROR”), what hope can you have to understand it? As this article reminds us through retelling the passage of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, we must be willing to be guided in our understanding of the bible.
Yes, Twin Thomases... all theology must conform with scriptures. But that is not to say that true scriptural interpretations will conform with anyone’s own personal interpretation of scripture, much less when that personal interpretation is built on historical divisiveness, such as that of Luther, who rejected 14 books and parts of three more of the bible, including 7 books and three parts which Protestants never accepted, and 7 which were accepted by Protestants despite Luther’s condemnations (including Jude, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, James, Revelations and Hebrews.)
Rather, to understand the scriptures correctly, one must look not only to one’s own understanding, but the constant teachings of those authorized to lead the Church by Christ, those he appointed, and those who appointed their successors according to Christ’s instructions.
>> It appears the Old Testament should be read in Hebrew <<
I would hesitate in that conclusion. The Greek Old TEstament is considerably older than that which the Jews use. Jesus’ own use of the Old Testament is far closer to the Greeks’ than the later Jews’, and while Jews insist that their translation is unchanged since Moses, the historical record has shown that quite plainly there has been a variety of very disparate Jewish versions, and that the only pre-Christian Old Testaments we have (from the Qumran) are far closer to Jesus’ and the Greek’s than that of the post-Jamnian Jews.
In fact, if one is to take the post-Jamnian Jews as aithoritative, one must conclude that the New Testament is filled with misunderstandings and false claims to fulfillments of prophecies based on those misunderstandings.
So I would stick with the Greek Old Testament, as well as the Greek New Testament, but of course, I would also say that understanding Hebrew, rather than just Koine Greek, may help one understand even more fully what the Greeks were translating from.
ping
Prayers for you that you would soften you rheart to the sweet forgiveness offered by Christ.
How we should read the Bible: In our native tongues, translated from the Textus Receptus. Any mysteries will be revealed as God wills.
By what power? If it isn't by the power of the Holy Spirit, what the church says is just garbage.
Therefore, it is NOT the church that tells us what is scripture, but God Himself.
Seems the church is suffering a bit from the sin of pride.
About the lineage of Jesus differing in Luke 3:23-38 and Matthew 1:1-17:
Hebrew (and even Greco-Roman) culture was very male-headship oriented and patristic. To have Mary’s lineage in Luke go to Joseph (saying “son” as opposed to our modern “son-in-law”) would of been a convention of the day (think about it, why do we even use the term “in law”...as in the older way of thinking, “in law” property, inheritance, really everything owned by the wife, became the property of her husband upon marriage).
Various early sources, and tradition, tells us Luke was a medical doctor. In that culture only medical doctors would regularly...in their practice...have interaction with women outside of their own family.
Think of Arab culture today...and they still interact this way. Therefore scholars have noted that in Luke there is more mention of Jesus’ dealings with, and honoring of, women...and stories only the women would of known, than in any other Gospel.
Tradition also has it that Luke—not being among the original 12 Disciples, and a Gentile....did historical research and interviews with Mary and other eyewitnesses—probably after Matthew was written. Being a Doctor too, he would be aware that Mary’s was definitely Jesus’ true biological geneology. It makes sense than that the geneology he gives is Mary’s, not Joseph’s. It also makes sense that a geneology was actually provided for historical purposes—as Luke seems to approach things more like (but not exactly like) a modern historian.
Of course Luke’s lineage too, like Matthew, goes through David-—showing Jesus from both sides, is a direct descendant of Israel’s most illustrious, godly and ideal King, from whom—according to all the prophesies—the Messiah would come.
Matthew on the other hand, was written for a Jewish audience originally (as the Bishop indicates above). As such it was very important to prove, legally....that Jesus had the royal right to be the Messiah. Matthew’s geneology, though not genetic (in that God the Holy Spirit, not Joseph is Jesus’ father)is Jesus formal, Royal Lineage.
According to all the prophesies about the coming King, Jesus would have no right to be the Messiah—unless he had a direct male lineage from David. So to our way of thinking this is nonsense—since Joseph was not his biological father—but to the 1st Century Jewish mind, this royal-legal-lineage was vital—and Matthew puts it first thing, to prove to his skeptical readers, that Jesus had the royal right to be the King, as a direct descendant of David.
Interestingly, Jeremiah 36:30 is a curse pronounced on the wicked King Jehoiakim—a descendent of David in Joseph’s line (NOT Mary’s)(and the last King of Judah):
“Therefore this is what the LORD says about Jehoiakim king of Judah: He will have no one to sit on the throne of David”
This can be understood as becoming literally true, in that Jesus—biologically—was not a descendant of Jehoiakim—hence none of Johoiakim’s descendents were ever king again—as King Jesus became the rightful, & eternal, heir to King David.
The Church’s power comes from the Holy Spirit, which protects it from falling into error on doctrinal matters.
The Textus Receptus is a corrupted version of the Bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls have revealed that the Jews corrupted the Old Testament, and that the Massoretic text’s version of Jeremiah, for example, has been augmented compared with how it read when Jesus walked the earth.
Thank you for posting this excellent article.
The Church should combat widespread "Biblical illiteracy" among the Catholic faithful, Archbishop Eterovic said.
-- from the thread Synod to Focus on Proper Use of Scripture
According to a study released in September by Baylor University’s Institute for Studies of Religion, evangelical Protestants are a whopping eight times more likely than Catholics to read the Bible on a weekly basis....we tip our hats to our separated brothers and sisters in Christ for their zeal for the Word of God.
-- from the National Catholic Register article Get Cracking, Catholics!
November 19-25, 2006 Issue
Sounds a bit prideful to me.
Although I agree Catholics need to know their faith and read their Bibles, Evangelical Protestants are wolves in sheep’s clothing when they approach ignorant Catholic or Orthodox laity.
Translation: unlike those mouth breathing, nose picking trailer trash who are an embarrassment to the entire chr*stian world, the hyper-intellectual Eastern Orthodox know that the Bible can't be interpreted in any way that disturbs the uniformity of nature . . . except when it comes to those "new testament miracles."
You mean some Catholics and Orthodox are "ignorant?" Perish the thought! I thought only trailer park dwelling "Bible-thumpers" were ignorant and that Catholics and Orthodox were all geniuses.
You're gonna get in trouble with your co-religionists for saying that!
Change that. Unschooled.
except when it comes to those “new testament miracles.”
Oh ye of little faith. :)
I doubt I will.
No. The Textus Receptus is the ONLY accurate version. All the others are corrupted and plants by those seeking to destroy the word of God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.