Posted on 12/19/2007 7:03:18 PM PST by Richard Poe
Very interesting stuff. Thanks for posting.
Like Davi and Solomon claimed?
>Catholic scholars are not leaning toward Aramaic Primacy, as far as I know — at least not toward the radical position which is so hotly debated nowadays.
As I stated, if the Aramaic was not the basis for ALL of the Gospels, then brothers and sisters of Jesus would mean just that, and the Roman Catholic dogma that Mary had no further children is left without basis.
Since this is one of the great rifts between the Prots and Catholics, I would see this as a stumbling block for any Catholic who is stuck trying to get Tradition and Scripture to say the same thing in defending Marian Doctrine.
>Most of these folks are fiercely anti-Catholic. They accuse the Roman Catholic Church of suppressing Aramaic and of mistranslating the Bible.
Interesting. Will have to look them up. I assume they claim to have a copy of the original that was mistranslated? I wonder how far they have wandered from the reservation...
No idea on the last name, but I’m pretty sure his middle name is “Tapdancing”.
Not necessarily. As I understand it, the Greek Primacists argue that the New Testament writers used Greek in order to reach a wide, literate audience outside of Judea.
However, just because they felt obliged to write in Greek does not mean they knew the language well. Those New Testament writers who were Jews -- and I believe all of them were -- would have spoken Aramaic as their first language. Greek would have been foreign to them.
Many Aramaicisms would have seeped into their writing simply because of their imperfect knowledge of Greek.
Yes, I believe they do.
>However, just because they felt obliged to write in Greek does not mean they knew the language well. Those New Testament writers who were Jews — and I believe all of them were — would have spoken Aramaic as their first language. Greek would have been foreign to them.
We do know that probably Paul knew Koine. As Koine was a lingua franca in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, and the fact that the Romans did all of their official work in Koine there, it is most likely that many of the Apostles, at least Matthew, a tax collector, knew at least a bit of Koine.
You must remember that a Roman soldier at the time could force a commoner to carry his pack. If you were that commoner, it might be in your best interest to learn enough Koine to keep the armed ruffian from using his weapons on you.
>Many Aramaicisms would have seeped into their writing simply because of their imperfect knowledge of Greek.
This is true. We have good indication that much of what Jesus spoke was Aramaic. But the body of the NT text is probably in Koine, and in some instances, written to people that had no Aramaic knowledge. The Gospel of John, for instance was written, most likely, in an area where Aramaic was not a common tongue, but rather Koine Greek.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia: < http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm >
“The place of composition was, according to the above-mentioned prologue, the province of Asia. Still more precise is the statement of St. Irenaeus, who tells us that John wrote his Gospel “at Ephesus in Asia” (Adv. haer., III, i, 2). All the other early references are in agreement with these statements.
The first readers of the Gospel were the Christians of the second and third generations in Asia Minor. There was no need of initiating them into the elements of the Faith; consequently John must have aimed rather at confirming against the attacks of its opponents the Faith handed down by their parents.”
Still, trying to force a text to say what is just hypothetical (to non-Catholics), and not clearly indicated is doing the Holy Scripture injustice (to the non-Catholics). I understand the difficulties that the Catholic is placed under, and when faced with two infallible sources, they must be made to say the same thing. However it must be also that the sources are not twisted out of shape. My opinion is that this particular bit is grasping at straws.
God is the author of life. I am pretty sure that He could create the genes required for God the Son to have a body of flesh.
Jesus is the Son of God as explained in various passages of the Bible. As per your Joseph statement, it’s just another way of saying Jesus is bioligcally Joseph’s son, which is wrong because the historical account is that Joseph had nothing to do with Christ’s conception. You also turn Joseph into a pious hypocrite because the record is clear he was going to divorce Mary, when he knew it was his child. Else you make god out to be a devious figure by taking Joseph’s genetic essence without him knowing it, and not telling Joseph about it, and allowing Joseph to think Mary was unfaithful and should divorce her. I think either way, your idea falls flat.
I'd say we're actually His adopted siblings, per Hebrews 2:11, and correspondingly adopted *sons* of His Father.
Sure. Why not Joseph's genes?
Jesus is the Son of God as explained in various passages of the Bible. As per your Joseph statement, it’s just another way of saying Jesus is bioligcally Joseph’s son, which is wrong because the historical account is that Joseph had nothing to do with Christ’s conception.
A sperm donor is not present at conception, but the baby still has his genes.
You also turn Joseph into a pious hypocrite because the record is clear he was going to divorce Mary, when he knew it was his child. Else you make god out to be a devious figure by taking Joseph’s genetic essence without him knowing it, and not telling Joseph about it, and allowing Joseph to think Mary was unfaithful and should divorce her.
Joseph found his new bride knocked up before he had, in biblical terms, "known" her. The natural inference is that she'd been knowing someone else. But God is not deceitful -- He sent an angel to set the record straight.
The bottom line is hat God had to choose genes He would combine with Mary's. Why not choose Joseph's? I don't recall any mention in the Gospels that Joseph was unusually small, or ugly, or had a family history of Down Syndrome. If Joseph had a kid who he knew to be his kin, who looked like him, the instinct to protect and provide would be the most natural instinct any human has known. It not only doesn't seem like a radical idea to me, it seems pretty obvious.
Many times, when I am troubled or confused, I find comfort
in sitting in my backyard and having a vodka and cranberry
along with a quiet conversation with Jesus.
This happened to me yesterday after a particularly difficult day.
I said “Jesus, why do I work so hard?”
And I heard the reply: “Men find many ways to demonstrate
the love they have for their family. You work hard to have a
peaceful, beautiful place for your friends and family to gather.”
I said: “I thought that money was the root of all evil.”
And the reply was: “No, the LOVE of money is the root
of all evil. Money is a tool; it can be used for good or bad.”
I was starting to feel better, but I still had that one burning
question, so I asked it. “Jesus,” I said, “what is the meaning
of life? Why am I here?”
He replied: “That is a question many men ask.
The answer is in your heart and is different for everyone.
I would love to chat with you some more, Senor, but for now,
I have to finish your lawn.”
The question that intrigues me more is, “Why Joseph’s?” Why make it appear that Christ is not of divine origin by making it appear that he is just a biological child of Joseph’s? I believe your theory needlessly overcomplicates this out of your desire to have some kind of bloodline because for some reason you put a certain importance on it for whatever reasons.
And while it may not seem radical to you, it is a radical idea and many have tried to cast doubt on Jesus’ divinity have used the same idea to say Jesus was conceived normally and the whole ‘born of a virgin’ was a hoax. If Christ was actually genetically Joseph’s son (whether Joseph impregnated Mary or God used Joseph’s DNA before telling him about it later), there would be no way to prove Joseph didn’t sleep with her and that Jesus was a human being conceived normally by Joseph and Mary.
Why you think God would allow such a thing to occur where there would be no evidence to show Christ wasn’t conceived in a divine way, but only confirm skeptics’ beliefs he was a normal human being conceived the normal human way (despite the pleas of Mary and Joseph saying different) is beyond me. You either take the Bible account as it is, or you don’t. You are going off into conjecture and putting forth a theory that is actually harder to defend than the regular biblical account.
There is another reason why this would not be, and it has to do with the promise God made toEve in Genesis, where God told her the Redeemer of the human race will come from “The Seed of the Woman”. It’s important because for those of us who understand the fall, and the corruption of human nature, original sin and such, because of Adam’s sin, all humans are conceived in sin and are born with a sin nature. The conception of Christ took place with Mary’s DNA (the seed of the woman) and God designing and providing the other half of the DNA for the physical body of Christ (ie God, the Son of God, God in the flesh). It would have nothing to do with ANY mortal man’s DNA. It would not have anything to do with Joseph’s DNA, or any other man’s DNA. God determined all by Himself what traits His body would have, and whatever similarities Christ visually appeared to have with Joseph are coincidental. The similarities with Mary are because half of His DNA came from her.
You say “Why not Joseph?” Well my whole above response is my explanation why this would not be. God is not going to do something that is going to give more evidence to the scoffers who believe Jesus was conceived normally by Joseph and Mary. Your personal twist to this doesn’t change that fact.
BTW, funny story! LOL!!
Wondered if it was an omen.
There was and is no way of proving Jesus' parentage. They didn't have paternity tests then, and his physical remains are long gone.
The biblical account does not mention that Jesus looked remarkably different from the other folks around Judea at the time, so he was probably dark-haired, olive-skinned, dark-eyed. There could be, and has been, suspicion that Jesus was conceived in the normal way, by Joseph or by the milkman. If God wanted to make such speculation impossible, he could have encoded the genes to give Jesus blue skin and green hair.
The father's DNA came from the same ethnic base as Joseph's, so I ask again, why not Joseph's?
And the figure that conquered the Roman Empire, which (attempted to) put him to death.
What you say is true I think, but the jews did maintain very detailed genealogies. I wonder if they exist somewhere. Not everything is on the internet.
There weren’t nearly as many people back then, and not everybody “counted.” Many of our family names are obviously references to places or occupations. I think it was whatever somebody was named when written records came into vogue. Obviously the Romans kept written records for taxation and registration purposes. Remember, it was for a census that Joseph and Mary had to travel to Bethlehem.
Tired of responding to you. Read my prior posts. I’m just going to ask you from now on,
“Why Joseph?” And no matter what you respond, “Again, why Joseph?”
You just don’t want to listen. PLease somebody else just tell this guy he’s brilliant so he can get the acceptance he wants.
Because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I didn’t hear you. I addressed your points. I found them unconvincing. If you don’t want to argue any more, then go your way and have a very merry Christmas.
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.