Jesus Christ, Rex...every time someone shows that the Bible says something you don't want to accept...you pretend the word means something else.
Now you are saying that the Bible has been mistranslated...and that it really meant to say "father" not "husband!"
What kind of terror could possibly make anyone that blind.
The geneology traced in that passage was directly to Joseph...Mary's husband.
Really...you have got to stop pretending that every time you encounter something you don't want to accept...that the words have been mistranslated. Don't you realize that your god hates liars damn near as much as he hates homosexuals.
Frank,
Please give me an explanation to this one...
Matthew 1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Luke 3:23
3:23
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Comment:
Which of the two were Joseph's father? Heli or Jacob? She did not have two husbands named Joseph...
Here is the research...
The word "husband" is the Greek word andra,
from the root word aner. The word aner simply means
"a male person of full age and stature," in contrast
to a child or a female. It is used of men in various
relationships, but its specific usage must always be
derived from the context. Indeed aner can be and is
translated "husband" in some contexts, but its normal
translation is "man."
In Matthew 1:16, Joseph is the aner, "the man" of
Mary. The Aramaic word translated in English
"husband" is gavra. Gavra means "mighty man." In
Biblical culture the father who is the head of the
household is "the mighty man." The son would not
be considered "the mighty man" of the household
until the father died, at which time the younger person
would become the head of the household.
Therefore, the English phrase "Joseph the husband"
in Matthew 1:16 is properly translated from
the Aramaic as "Joseph the mighty man [gavra, the
father] of Mary."
This truth is substantiated even further in Matthew
1:19 where the word "husband" is properly
translated in the King James Version. There, this
word which refers to Mary's husband Joseph is bala
in Aramaic. It is not gavra, as in Matthew 1:16.
That is because Matthew 1:16 speaks of Joseph who
was Mary's father, her gavra, while in contrast, Matthew
1:19 speaks of Joseph who was Mary's husband,
her bala. Hence, Mary's father's name was
Joseph, and Mary's husband's name also was
Joseph.
We have utilized Greek, Aramaic, the recorded
genealogies, and ancient custom to demonstrate that
the word "husband" in Matthew 1:16 should be
rendered "father."
So can we conclude the prophecies of old are a bit closer to being fulfilled?
Also I don't think you are qualified as of yet to tell me who God "hates"...
God does ask us to "study" his Word and not just interpret on face value. In proper study we are not "ashamed" of the interpretation...
RexRed wrote:Frank,
Please give me an explanation to this one...
Matthew 1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Luke 3:23
3:23
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Comment:
Which of the two were Joseph's father? Heli or Jacob? She did not have two husbands named Joseph...
My explanation, Rex, is that the Bible is filled with inconsistencies...which is the norm for a book of mythology. That being the case, I do not fault it on that account.
Quote:
Here is the research...
The word "husband" is the Greek word andra,
from the root word aner. The word aner simply means
"a male person of full age and stature," in contrast
to a child or a female. It is used of men in various
relationships, but its specific usage must always be
derived from the context. Indeed aner can be and is
translated "husband" in some contexts, but its normal
translation is "man."
In Matthew 1:16, Joseph is the aner, "the man" of
Mary. The Aramaic word translated in English
"husband" is gavra. Gavra means "mighty man." In
Biblical culture the father who is the head of the
household is "the mighty man." The son would not
be considered "the mighty man" of the household
until the father died, at which time the younger person
would become the head of the household.
Therefore, the English phrase "Joseph the husband"
in Matthew 1:16 is properly translated from
the Aramaic as "Joseph the mighty man [gavra, the
father] of Mary."
This truth is substantiated even further in Matthew
1:19 where the word "husband" is properly
translated in the King James Version. There, this
word which refers to Mary's husband Joseph is bala
in Aramaic. It is not gavra, as in Matthew 1:16.
That is because Matthew 1:16 speaks of Joseph who
was Mary's father, her gavra, while in contrast, Matthew
1:19 speaks of Joseph who was Mary's husband,
her bala. Hence, Mary's father's name was
Joseph, and Mary's husband's name also was
Joseph.
We have utilized Greek, Aramaic, the recorded
genealogies, and ancient custom to demonstrate that
the word "husband" in Matthew 1:16 should be
rendered "father."
Please give me a citation for this "research" which sounds like not especially good rationalization to me.
In any case, if you were to google "Geneology of Jesus" you will probably find tens of thousands of discussions of this issue...and damn near every one of them will acknowledge that one geneology goes to the geneology of Mary...and the other goes to the geneology of Joseph, Mary's HUSBAND...and the (supposed) step-father of Jesus.
Now I am sure you will find one or two (perhaps Jehovah's Witnesses sources) that will contradict what is obviously the case...but you and others who play this game are doing exactly that...playing a game.
Quote:So can we conclude the prophecies of old are a bit closer to being fulfilled?
In no way, shape, or form. The prophecies are baloney...and about as forced as any mythology has ever attempted.
Quote:Also I don't think you are qualified as of yet to tell me who God "hates"...
I suspect I am a lot more qualified than you suspect...but, I doubt you will open your eyes to see that.
Quote:God does ask us to "study" his Word and not just interpret on face value. In proper study we are not "ashamed" of the interpretation...
No, I think not. I suspect it is your religion that asks you to accept their interpretations, rationalizations, and justifications...and to pretend that doing so constitutes "study."
You folks don't "study" the Bible, Rex, you rationalize it.
But if it calms your tredpit heart, Rex...do it in good health, my friend.
Therefore, the English phrase "Joseph the husband"
in Matthew 1:16 is properly translated from
the Aramaic as "Joseph the mighty man [gavra, the
father] of Mary."
This truth is substantiated even further in Matthew
1:19 where the word "husband" is properly
translated in the King James Version. There, this
word which refers to Mary's husband Joseph is bala
in Aramaic. It is not gavra, as in Matthew 1:16.
That is because Matthew 1:16 speaks of Joseph who
was Mary's father, her gavra, while in contrast, Matthew
1:19 speaks of Joseph who was Mary's husband,
her bala. Hence, Mary's father's name was
Joseph, and Mary's husband's name also was
Joseph.
RexRed wrote:Therefore, the English phrase "Joseph the husband"
in Matthew 1:16 is properly translated from
the Aramaic as "Joseph the mighty man [gavra, the
father] of Mary."
This truth is substantiated even further in Matthew
1:19 where the word "husband" is properly
translated in the King James Version. There, this
word which refers to Mary's husband Joseph is bala
in Aramaic. It is not gavra, as in Matthew 1:16.
That is because Matthew 1:16 speaks of Joseph who
was Mary's father, her gavra, while in contrast, Matthew
1:19 speaks of Joseph who was Mary's husband,
her bala. Hence, Mary's father's name was
Joseph, and Mary's husband's name also was
Joseph.
Except that Mary's father's name was Joachim, not Joseph.
Since you are probably going to tell Joe that Joachim translates to Joseph (which is why I didn't mention it when I wrote last) I will ask you once again for the research citation.
I suspect you are using Jehovah's Witnesses propaganda...but I would like to be sure.
In any case...why are you so upset with me, when I did ask you for the further information you offered.
Am I supposed to take your word for the fact that Luke actually meant "father" rather than "husband?"
And what is this problem you have with Googling to get information? Would you give me as much shyt if I told you I went to a library?
Did I give you any grief when you went to research your facts?
What is it with you?
The Catholic encyclopedia says of their assertion that Mary's father was Joachim...
True, this tradition seems to rest ultimately on the so-called "Gospel of James", the "Gospel of the Nativity of the Blessed Mary", and the Pseudo-Matthew, or "Book of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Childhood of the Saviour"; and this origin is likely to rouse well-founded suspicions.
Quote:These books mentioned above were written if not a few hundred years after the Gospels.
Not sure what that sentence was trying to convey...but I will agree that most Biblical material was written much later than most Christians want to suppose.
Quote:Here is a link to more of the research I posted before...
And NO Frank it is not from the Jehovah's Witnesses...
Really?
And how do you know it is not from the Jehovah's Witnesses...since it is simply a collection of words with absolutely no source whatsoever given in it.
And how can you, with a straight face, possibly talk about suspicion for the Books of the Apocrypha...and then reject the monumental, well-documented, scholarly Catholic Encyclopedia...and use an unsigned, undocumented piece of writing as a "source" instead?
Are you a serious person? Some of your lecturing of me indicates that you think I do not take you as a serious person, Rex...but you don't write like someone who is serious.
Quote:Also I was incorrect when I said that both genealogies Matthew/Luke were from Mary... The one in Luke is from Joseph the "husband" of Mary... Please excuse my error... It has been a few years since I have breached this subject.
No problem. We all make mistakes...and I thank you for, and respect you for...this comment.
Quote:This research explains this. http://rexred.com/Royal.html (this took me a while to put in digital form I hope you all appreciate the effort)
After studying this, I tend to accept this study over the research done in the Catholic encyclopedia on the subject of Mary's father... It was not Joachim but Joseph. I have used my honest intellect to decide and not personal bias...
Of course it is a personal bias, Rex...it cannot be an honest intellectual exercise...because in the apocryphal writings, you have material that was set on record (as you estimate) within a hundred or so years of the founding of Christianity...and with the "research source" you have an unidentified, apparently modern day source who is simply saying things you think help your thesis.
In any case, we are getting far astray...and it is obvious to me that you will suppose that the 871 prophesies of the Old Testament were all met...no matter how much scholarship is brought to bear questioning the tenuous...often laughable...grammatical gerrymandering that is shown.
Frank you wrote:
Really?
And how do you know it is not from the Jehovah's Witnesses...since it is simply a collection of words with absolutely no source whatsoever given in it.
And how can you, with a straight face, possibly talk about suspicion for the Books of the Apocrypha...and then reject the monumental, well-documented, scholarly Catholic Encyclopedia...and use an unsigned, undocumented piece of writing as a "source" instead?
Comment:
I know who wrote the work and if you choose to think it is from the Jehovah's Witnesses then so be it, but, I know it is not because I know the author's name and denomination. It is the substance of the words that are written... and not the importance of the writer that matters.
About the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia... I have found it to be a great source of learning. I diverge from it's accuracy when it relies on tradition over the written word. (It does this quite liberally) It is the Bible that names Mary's father as Joseph and the Bible that names Mary's husband Joseph's father... I choose to believe the written word of the Bible over traditions of any religion.
Its about "self maintenance" ! :wink:
RexRed wrote:Frank you wrote:
Really?
And how do you know it is not from the Jehovah's Witnesses...since it is simply a collection of words with absolutely no source whatsoever given in it.
And how can you, with a straight face, possibly talk about suspicion for the Books of the Apocrypha...and then reject the monumental, well-documented, scholarly Catholic Encyclopedia...and use an unsigned, undocumented piece of writing as a "source" instead?
Comment:
I know who wrote the work and if you choose to think it is from the Jehovah's Witnesses then so be it, but, I know it is not because I know the author's name and denomination. It is the substance of the words that are written... and not the importance of the writer that matters.
Rex you have cited as your source and unnamed, undocumented collection of words that you may have made up yourself and now you are getting in a huff because it is questioned.
And you reject the scholarship of the Catholic Encyclopedia and the books of the Apocrypha in favor of this unnamed, undocumented source supposedly in the name of intellectual reason and logic instead of mere bias.
Give us a break here, will ya!
Identify your source or don't.
It is your choice.
But don't pretend indignation if someone gets a laugh out of nonsense like this.
Quote:About the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia... I have found it to be a great source of learning. I diverge from it's accuracy when it relies on tradition over the written word. (It does this quite liberally) It is the Bible that names Mary's father as Joseph and the Bible that names Mary's husband Joseph's father... I choose to believe the written word of the Bible over traditions of any religion.
Once again gimme the source!
Where, as you state here, does the Bible name Joseph as Mary's father?
And while you are at it, where, does the Bible name "Mary's husband Joseph's father?" (Whatever that means???)
there is no probelm of self. becuase i have no problem with my self, so no probelm with self exists.
