The Pauline Paradox

[radarmark]

Extremism and exclusiveness are not merely the distinguishing factors of Christianity. Islam (persecution of Shia, Sufi, Alivi, Yazidis, Sikhs, Bahai's), Hinduism (see the destruction of Buddhism in India), heck, even the destruction of the Catholic Awatovi by the Peaceful People (Hopi) have displayed this "us versus them" mentality.

Is it Paul or the overt nastiness of the Gospel of John? I think those are merely excuses. It's like when my step-father used to beat me.... "he asked for it" (yeah, and how do you justify the tieing up?).

 

[Azure24]

As far as I understood your post, you have said nothing to exonerate Jesus from having been a biological son of Joseph.

And why should I? All evidence in the Bible suggests Jesus was not Joseph's biological son.

But since your intention is to convey that he was adopted by Joseph, he was not from the Tribe of Judah. Tribal inheritance could not have been achieved through adoption. In that case, Jesus was a Jew without Tribal affiliation.

Your point is invalid. As everyone had believed Jesus was the actual son of Joseph, after all Joseph was married to Mary...no one thought Jesus was adopted.

The fact is Mary's lineage could be traced back to King David. Whether this was the case by Jewish law or not doesn't matter.

 

[radarmark]

I, too, have read the Bible. Excuse me, there is nothing contradicting Jesus being Joseph's son or the full brother to his brothers and sisters.

Re-read the geneologies. Luke and Matthew differ radically from David to Jesus. Oh, and bpth are geneologies through Joseph. Mary is not given one.

 

[Ben Masada]

You aren't the first person to think so. There were persecutions, and they were bad. I believe that its possible Paul was the cause, but it is very convenient to put it all on him and let the rest of us walk. Its possible that the reasons for those awful persecutions were much worse than can be explained by what somebody named Paul said one time. He was only one person, and he himself wasn't even alive during those persecutions. Let me point out from my own US history that white people here once used the pentateuch to justify slavery of the worst kind. I don't think that it would be fair to say that slavery was the Bible's fault. Similarly, it might not be Paul's fault that Jews were killed by Christians. Politics were involved for example.

I'm bringing up Hyram Maccoby because his point of view seems similar to yours (For new people: The Mythmaker was copyrighted in 1987 by Hyam Maccoby) Maccoby's writing has been very influential, and Maccoby places Paul in a frame in which he definitely appears to be anti Jewish. Unlike you however he doesn't ever say that Paul caused all of the persecutions.. Maccoby's book never made any definite claims about Paul (like you are doing). Instead he would say things like "We have reason to believe that Paul was not in fact a Pharisee," or "We have built up...a picture of Paul that is very different from the conventional one." That is a slight difference from him in your approach which becomes a huge difference somewhere along the way. He states right from the beginning that he's ignoring alternative methods of interpretation and taking a particular standpoint, and with this he's free to see Paul in his way. He asks some good questions, but his model doesn't account for everything Paul says or that the gospels say. That being said he very nearly places all of the problems onto the lap of an individual who is conveniently dead and so cannot be reached for comment, the same thing that you might be doing.

As I can see, from reading this post of yours, that you, somehow, try to defend Paul. "Is it possible that Paul was the cause?" No, Dream, he was not only the cause but also the first. Read Acts 9:1,2. When he went to Jerusalem for letters to arrest the Nazarenes, he went to the synagogues of Damascus. I wonder if the High Priest who gave him the permission knew that he was persecuting Jews in their synagogues.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Extremism and exclusiveness are not merely the distinguishing factors of Christianity. Islam (persecution of Shia, Sufi, Alivi, Yazidis, Sikhs, Bahai's), Hinduism (see the destruction of Buddhism in India), heck, even the destruction of the Catholic Awatovi by the Peaceful People (Hopi) have displayed this "us versus them" mentality.

Is it Paul or the overt nastiness of the Gospel of John? I think those are merely excuses. It's like when my step-father used to beat me.... "he asked for it" (yeah, and how do you justify the tieing up?).

I see no difference between the agenda behind the the guy who wrote the gospel of John and that of Paul's. Both were Hellenists.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

And why should I? All evidence in the Bible suggests Jesus was not Joseph's biological son.

Your point is invalid. As everyone had believed Jesus was the actual son of Joseph, after all Joseph was married to Mary...no one thought Jesus was adopted.

The fact is Mary's lineage could be traced back to King David. Whether this was the case by Jewish law or not doesn't matter.

Mary and Jesus were Jewish, and Judaism does not go according to what one thinks so and thus. Besides, there is nothing in the gospels any closer that Luke 1:5, 36 to say that Mary was a cousin/sister to Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron the Levite. In Hebrew there is not much of a difference between a female cousin and sister. Therefore, it is only obvious that Mary was from the Tribe of Levi. And with regards to Jesus, if he was not a biological son of Joseph, he was a Jew without all lineage to any Tribe in Israel.

And when you say that no one thought Jesus was adopted, I know that. They thought that Jesus was a mamzer, the Hebrew word for ba$tard, because of the many Jewish children born as a result of rapes of young Jewish ladies by Roman soldiers. See the repercussion on the Christian claim that Jesus was not a son of Joseph's?
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

I, too, have read the Bible. Excuse me, there is nothing contradicting Jesus being Joseph's son or the full brother to his brothers and sisters.

Re-read the geneologies. Luke and Matthew differ radically from David to Jesus. Oh, and bpth are geneologies through Joseph. Mary is not given one.

And I can't agree with your more. Even as a Jew, I could very well take that Jesus was born as a result of a rape by a Roman soldier to respond to the Christian claim that he was not a biological son of Joseph's. But I prefer that nothing of the sort happened and Jesus was indeed born of both, Mary and Joseph.
Ben

 

[Dream]

As I can see, from reading this post of yours, that you, somehow, try to defend Paul. "Is it possible that Paul was the cause?" No, Dream, he was not only the cause but also the first. Read Acts 9:1,2. When he went to Jerusalem for letters to arrest the Nazarenes, he went to the synagogues of Damascus. I wonder if the High Priest who gave him the permission knew that he was persecuting Jews in their synagogues.
Ben

I'm not defending or attacking Paul. Paul comes to us through the tradition of the church. I'm not sure what scapegoating means to you, but in the modern sense of the term that is what you are making Paul into and simultaneously letting everyone else off of responsibility. If Paul is responsible for these evils, then we aren't. It doesn't change anything except that it allows you to accept Christian tradition minus Paul, but you must know its the same as it was with him. Its still the same thing, same people, same same. We ourselves tell ourselves that the reason we've had pogroms and persecutions is that we misunderstood the scriptures, but surely you realize that this is a lie. The reason we have done it is much much worse, and it begins with the fact that Jewish people have always pretty much stood out from the crowd. You dress strangely, and you rear your children differently. It is too convenient when we want to blame somebody for something or when superstition and rumors grow. Its like you're the whipping boy. Have you ever heard of this concept? Long ago a king had a son who was unruly and disrespectful to his tutors, but the tutors were afraid to discipline him for fear of reprisals. The king assigned to him a poor boy to be his friend, to play with and to study with him, and to take a beating whenever that son was disrespectful or performed poorly. The kings son eventually learned to sympathize with his friend's sufffering and behaved himself and the whipping boy was greatly rewarded. Ok, lets say he was adopted. The end. I'm not saying you are not equal or have not received huge blessings, but I'm saying that sometimes society's growth has come at your expense as if you were a whipping boy. Naturally you want to know why you keep getting spanked, but its not because of Paul.

 

[Azure24]

I, too, have read the Bible. Excuse me, there is nothing contradicting Jesus being Joseph's son or the full brother to his brothers and sisters.

Even Jesus being the son of God?

Re-read the geneologies. Luke and Matthew differ radically from David to Jesus. Oh, and bpth are geneologies through Joseph. Mary is not given one.

So the genealogy in Luke and Matthew differ radically, yet they are both the genealogy of Joseph? What?

We should also take into account that it was proper in that culture to name first the woman's husband as part of HER genealogy. Matthew starts with Abraham and comes forward to Joseph (Jesus' legal genealogy), whereas Luke (writing to Gentiles) starts with Joseph who is not the "son" of Heli, but the "son-in-LAW," his "son according to the law." And then takes up the genealogy of Heli the literal Father of Mary and goes backward all the way back to Adam.

Did you read my previous post? Pay attention to the CAPITALS:

"And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph the [son] of Eli..."

whereas Rotherham reads : "...the son of Joseph of Heli."

and the Concordant reads: "...being a son (as to the law) of Joseph, of Eli, of Matthat, of Levi."

Now then, to me "son of" is clearly not in the Greek, and so it is not necessarily fitting that it should be supplied by the translators in this case.

Joseph in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus is not the "son of Heli" but rather Jacob (Matt. 1:16).

"and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was begotten Jesus, who is named Christ."

And so this could be a case such as we find in Deut. 25:5-6--"If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her HUSBAND'S BROTHER shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she bears shall succeed IN THE NAME OF HIS BROTHER which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel."

And so Heli may have been a "son IN LAW" rather than "a son." And this could be Mary's genealogy back to Solomon where they apparently merge again with Joseph's line.

"son of" is in italic (in most Bibles) and not in the original. So some of the descendants were merely "of" so and so, not the literal first general "son" of so and so, etc. So we're dealing with complexities here.

There are many scenarios: Joseph is the son of Jacob who dies with a surviving brother named Heli. Heli has a daughter Mary (now first cousins with Joseph), whom Joseph marries (first cousins are not forbidden to marry in the Bible), and hence Jesus is a true Jew through Mary who is a Jew through Heli.

Or: Jacob dies childless, but has a brother, Heli. According to the Law, the brother of the deceased (in this case Heli) was to raise up seed to his deceased brother (Deut. 25:5). And although in this case Heli would be the real and natural father of Joseph, he would be legally considered Jacob's son (See Deut. 25 verse 6).

 

[Azure24]

...And when you say that no one thought Jesus was adopted, I know that. They thought that Jesus was a mamzer, the Hebrew word for ba$tard, because of the many Jewish children born as a result of rapes of young Jewish ladies by Roman soldiers.

What?

"And all (JEWS) bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said (JEWS at the Synagogue), Is not this JOSEPH'S SON?" (Luke. 4:22)

"The JEWS then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they (JEWS) said, Is not this Jesus, the son of JOSEPH, whose FATHER and mother WE KNOW? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" (John. 6:41-42)

Have you read the Bible BTW?

 

[radarmark]

Re: The Pauline Paradox

​

Quote:
Originally Posted by radarmark http://www.interfaith.org/forum/the-pauline-paradox-15192-2.html#post266555
I, too, have read the Bible. Excuse me, there is nothing contradicting Jesus being Joseph's son or the full brother to his brothers and sisters.

Even Jesus being the son of God?
It really depends on what you mean by “son of G!d” doesn’t it? It is possible that this was a metaphor. Vermes has a really good criticism of “son of Man” and “son of G!d”. SOM is just a kind of Greek placeholder meaning anything but “The Son of Man” as a title (usually should be translated as “man”). This would have been a common mistake for a Koine speaker to make if translating Aramaic with the help of someone not fluent in both (same thing happened with translation of Enoch). “Son of God” has not always been used the way you do (look up the Nestorian and Armenian and Tewahedo Christologies), this is consistent with how the term was used (see Hicks’ “The Metaphor of God Incarnate”). Those early churches just could not conceive G!d being born (even metaphorically) so they usually adopted an Adoptionist explanation.
One must realize what you mean by a word is not always how others use or have used it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by radarmark http://www.interfaith.org/forum/the-pauline-paradox-15192-2.html#post266555
Re-read the geneologies. Luke and Matthew differ radically from David to Jesus. Oh, and bpth are geneologies through Joseph. Mary is not given one.

So the genealogy in Luke and Matthew differ radically, yet they are both the genealogy of Joseph? What?

We should also take into account that it was proper in that culture to name first the woman's husband as part of HER genealogy. Matthew starts with Abraham and comes forward to Joseph (Jesus' legal genealogy), whereas Luke (writing to Gentiles) starts with Joseph who is not the "son" of Heli, but the "son-in-LAW," his "son according to the law." And then takes up the genealogy of Heli the literal Father of Mary and goes backward all the way back to Adam.

Did you read my previous post? Pay attention to the CAPITALS:
If you mean bold, I did. Please look up what (I, at least thought) is common knowledge (try looking up jesus’ geneology on wiki). The Lukean text contradicts that of Matthew. All this Heli as “father-in-law” or “woman’s verbal history” or “really the genealogy of Mary” are made up explanations for the divergence (John of Damascus was trying to make the Bible inerrant when he first proposed something like this).
Yes, any of these or your following are potential explanations—but they are non-scriptural. They are claims that can be debated and (possibly) scientifically verified. But they do not in and of themselves support any such notions.
The text says “Joseph of Heli”… which to any rational scholar would mean “Joseph son of Heli”. That is unimportant, the genealogies differ dramatically and all the time-worn explanations (From John to Damascus to now) cannot explain it. They might—but that is a matter of probability, not truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure24 http://www.interfaith.org/forum/the-pauline-paradox-15192-2.html#post266486
"And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph the [son] of Eli..."

whereas Rotherham reads : "...the son of Joseph of Heli."

and the Concordant reads: "...being a son (as to the law) of Joseph, of Eli, of Matthat, of Levi."

Now then, to me "son of" is clearly not in the Greek, and so it is not necessarily fitting that it should be supplied by the translators in this case.

Joseph in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus is not the "son of Heli" but rather Jacob (Matt. 1:16).

"and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was begotten Jesus, who is named Christ."

And so this could be a case such as we find in Deut. 25:5-6--"If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her HUSBAND'S BROTHER shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she bears shall succeed IN THE NAME OF HIS BROTHER which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel."

And so Heli may have been a "son IN LAW" rather than "a son." And this could be Mary's genealogy back to Solomon where they apparently merge again with Joseph's line.

"son of" is in italic (in most Bibles) and not in the original. So some of the descendants were merely "of" so and so, not the literal first general "son" of so and so, etc. So we're dealing with complexities here.

There are many scenarios: Joseph is the son of Jacob who dies with a surviving brother named Heli. Heli has a daughter Mary (now first cousins with Joseph), whom Joseph marries (first cousins are not forbidden to marry in the Bible), and hence Jesus is a true Jew through Mary who is a Jew through Heli.

Or: Jacob dies childless, but has a brother, Heli. According to the Law, the brother of the deceased (in this case Heli) was to raise up seed to his deceased brother (Deut. 25:5). And although in this case Heli would be the real and natural father of Joseph, he would be legally considered Jacob's son (See Deut. 25 verse 6).

Those are all examples of what could be explanations. Matthew and Luke are divergent and all the possible scenarios, while interesting probabilities are just that and not truth.

Rotherham, like King James is filled with errors. Try the Jesus seminar or the Schonfiled editions or even the Cambridge Bible (much better translations without all the concordance stuff that really is poor).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Masada http://www.interfaith.org/forum/the-pauline-paradox-15192-2.html#post266561
...And when you say that no one thought Jesus was adopted, I know that. They thought that Jesus was a mamzer, the Hebrew word for ba$tard, because of the many Jewish children born as a result of rapes of young Jewish ladies by Roman soldiers.

What?

"And all (JEWS) bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said (JEWS at the Synagogue), Is not this JOSEPH'S SON?" (Luke. 4:22)

"The JEWS then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they (JEWS) said, Is not this Jesus, the son of JOSEPH, whose FATHER and mother WE KNOW? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" (John. 6:41-42)

Have you read the Bible BTW?

This is pretty offensive. Ben Masada (like I) have the advantage of having the Oral Tradition’s sayings (like the Muslims’ have those of the Quran).
It is all a matter of the context we have. You read “Son of God” and “Father” through a 700 year old protestant lens. The Muslim through a 1500 year Islamic lens. Ben and I through an 1800 year old Jewish lens. And do not forget the earliest churches (Armenian, Nestorian, and Tewahodic) with their close to 2000 year old lenses.
Words mean different things to different people with different contexts. That is just human nature. “Joseph of Heli” means “Joseph the son of Heli” to me (and most biblical scholars)… but it means “Joseph the son-in-law of Heli” to you and the Concordant.
Do not be so dismissive of those with differing interpretations.

 

[Azure24]

It really depends on what you mean by “son of G!d” doesn’t it? It is possible that this was a metaphor....One must realize what you mean by a word is not always how others use or have used it.

I have heard of this theory and it doesn't sit.

The Bible teaches there are TWO Gods...in ONE NAME.

The very first verse of Genesis we have this:

"In the BEGINNING God created the heaven and the earth." (Gen. 1:1)

The word "beginning" here is actually firstfruit.

and in the book of Revelation we have this:

"...I am Alpha and Omega, the BEGINNING and the end..." (REv. 21:6)

So Jesus Christ is the "beginning" mentioned in Genesis. Then who is God? The Father.

"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of US…" (Gen. 3:22)

See, "us" plural. The Father and the Son.

I can give scripture after scripture that will point Jesus to being the son of God. NONE of these scriptures would make any sense otherwise.

"And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS....Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know NOT A MAN?" (Luke. 7:31-34)

All this Heli as “father-in-law” or “woman’s verbal history” or “really the genealogy of Mary” are made up explanations for the divergence (John of Damascus was trying to make the Bible inerrant when he first proposed something like this).

How are they made up explanations? You mentioned yourself the passages in Matthew and Luke are different.

It was proper in that culture to name first the woman's husband as part of HER genealogy. Matthew's account starts with Abraham and comes forward to Joseph (Jesus' legal genealogy), whereas Luke (writing to Gentiles) starts with Joseph who is not the "son" of Heli, but the "son-in-LAW," his "son according to the law." And then takes up the genealogy of Heli the literal Father of Mary and goes backward all the way back to Adam.

Yes, any of these or your following are potential explanations—but they are non-scriptural...

How are they unscriptural?

"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." (Heb. 7:14)

"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, THE SON OF DAVID, the son of Abraham." (Matt. 1:1)

This is pretty offensive. Ben Masada (like I) have the advantage of having the Oral Tradition’s sayings (like the Muslims’ have those of the Quran). It is all a matter of the context we have.

It is also a matter of agenda. Clearly it is written that many Jews assumed Jesus to be the son of Joseph...where is the proof for the contrary?

 

[radarmark]

Let us do this again. I honor and respect your opinion, but I also honor and respect others’. See “Son of G!d” was originally (in the earliest existing Christian Churches—Armenian, Nestorian, Tewahedo) an affirmation of the adoption of Jesus by G!d (hence “Adoptionism”). So quote the Bible (as you read it) all you want, other, far older Christian traditions just do not agree with you.
You are preaching, not explaining. First of all, I very well know what “Beresyth” means “in beginning” (the the is understood in translation into English with all its articles). The same word is not used in Revelation (again, the Eastern traditions do not read Revelations as you do—but either as a history of the early church wrapped in metaphor or they do not have it in their canon). “Arche” (the actual word in Revelation) does not have the same commutation… more like “originally”. Use your web tools and concordances, Azure. There are multiple translations, none of them 100% correct, to really make this argument stick, one must be proficient in both Hebrew and Greek (and probably Aramaic, since Revelation seems to have an Aramaic undertone due to “John the Priest”).
The “elohim” translated at Gen 3:22 is plural. But it is plural everywhere in the OT. It can be said to correspond to the royal we. See it is a matter of interpretation. Then it is a matter of probability: “what is the probability that this interpretation is right”?
Your Luke reference is off (Luke 1:34). That being said, the translation really is “man not know”. Brown, Fitsmyer, Schberg, Guy, and Landry (all competent and well-known Greek Biblical Academics) have all (see studies by Landry, Reilly and Udoh in Journal of Biblical Studies) it is a poor Greek translation of the clearly sexual “know” of the OT to indicate she was intact before the conception. So was my mother and any other mother. It does not say “I am a virgin yet have conceived”.
The issue of “Heli”. Let me make this real clear. The text says “Joseph of Heli”. The easiest inference is that Joseph is the son of Heli. Nowhere does it say “son-in-law”. That interpretation dates to John of Damascus. Africanus came up with the “woman’s account” that Eli and Jacob were “uterine brothers” (also called levirate marriage). The “Mary’s geneology” explanation is nowhere near that ancient—dating from Lightfoot’s Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae published in 1663 (where the outrageous claim that the woman’s husband was part of her genealogy is first made). All three of these readings (Joseph as son-in-law of Heli, Heli and Jacob as brothers with different fathers, and Heli as Mary’s father) have no basis in the text. If you are a literalist, you must accept that. If not, they are just three possible interpretations.
And there are others. The hard-core biblical scholarship view that one of the two genealogies is wrong, the Muslim interpretation that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and the (from the first or second century) Jewish interpretation that he was a Mamzer. The Muslim and Jewish interpretations are based on their canon. As before, and of these six interpretations could be right, just assign a probability between zero and one.
The actual truth of any interpretation is not knowable. The scripture is the scripture. It is a set of words written down in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek long ago. The probable is for us to make sense of them, to interpret them. But those interpretations (mine that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph or yours that the Luke genealogy is actually Mary’s) are not scriptural.
Final point, just look up where the mamzer or son of Joseph claims come from. Jesus as the son of Mary via natural procreation is in the Quran. The mamzer interpretation predates the John of Damascus interpretation by a century or two and is from Doctina Jacobi, a rabbinic text from the early seventh century and shows up in the Talmud (the Oral Law).
Again, of course we have read the Bible. But note not all Bibles are the same. We have also read the Quran (or at least I have) and (parts of, for me) the Talmud. Because we do not agree with your interpretation does not mean we are (as you implied) ignorant.

 

[bananabrain]

another day, another ben masada picking-a-fight-with-christians thread. *sigh*.

The fact is Mary's lineage could be traced back to King David.

in fact, i believe mary was supposed to be a benjaminite, not a judahite - politically this would have solved quite a few problems by unifying the royal succession and removing opposition relating to surviving claimants of hasmonean or kishite (ie from king saul) descent.

They thought that Jesus was a mamzer, the Hebrew word for ba$tard, because of the many Jewish children born as a result of rapes of young Jewish ladies by Roman soldiers.

a child of rape by a roman soldier wouldn't be a mamzer; some incestuous component would also be needed.

claims that jesus was the son of G!D of course would be taken with somewhat more than a pinch of salt, however.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Azure24]

See “Son of G!d” was originally (in the earliest existing Christian Churches—Armenian, Nestorian, Tewahedo) an affirmation of the adoption of Jesus by G!d (hence “Adoptionism”).

Radarmark, I respect your opinion too and understand your point. But if Jesus is just a man then the rest of the Bible would not make sense.

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM." (John. 8:56-58).

Jesus is the God in the OT.

"And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his NAME? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM that I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." (Exo.3:13-14)

The “elohim” translated at Gen 3:22 is plural. But it is plural everywhere in the OT. It can be said to correspond to the royal we. See it is a matter of interpretation.

It is everywhere in the OT and rightly so. The Father and The Son.

Your Luke reference is off (Luke 1:34)... It does not say “I am a virgin yet have conceived”.

Make of it what you will.

If He were just a human being and He didn’t come from anywhere, except His mother’s womb. Then someplace between coming out of His mother’s womb and going out and spreading the gospel, He had to find out who He was. Who told Him? When was He told? He couldn’t have been told when He was 12 years old.

At the Passover time, when Jesus was 12 years old they went up to Jerusalem and they were there for the feast. And it came to pass after they left they looked around in their company and Jesus wasn’t there. So they went back to Jerusalem, apparently they were gone a whole day and then they had to come back another whole day and then they walked around Jerusalem a whole day. They went to all of the places that they thought He might be and finally they found Him at the temple.

Luke 2:48 "And when they saw Him, they were amazed: and His mother said unto Him, Son, why have You thus dealt with us? behold, Your father and I have sought You sorrowing."

v. 49 "And He said unto them, How is it that you sought Me? Wist you not…"
v. 49 "…Don’t you know that I must be about My Father's business?"
v. 50 "And they understood not…"

They didn’t know who He was, Jesus is 12 years old and His own parents didn’t know who He was.

All these people dealt with Jesus and they didn’t know, His own parents didn’t know who He was. He was just a little boy that got left behind and they had to go back and get Him. He said “don’t you know that I must be about My Father's business?”

So at 12 years old He wasn’t told, He already knew who He was! Not only did He know that His Father had business for Him to do, He was already doing it! He said I’m already about it, I‘m already doing it, at 12 years old. Well when did He know who He was?

The actual truth of any interpretation is not knowable. The scripture is the scripture. It is a set of words written down in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek long ago. The probable is for us to make sense of them, to interpret them. But those interpretations (mine that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph or yours that the Luke genealogy is actually Mary’s) are not scriptural.

Nothing is left to interpretation. This is why scripture must ALWAYS be supported. This is scriptural:

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy [inspired writing or speaking] of the Scripture is of any private [Gk: ‘its OWN’] interpretation" (II Pet. 1:20).

"To understand a proverb, AND THE INTERPRETATION [or ‘puzzle’—the proverb itself is not also the interpretation]…" (Prov. 1:6).

"Are you able to make known unto me THE DREAM which I have seen, AND THE INTERPRETATION thereof [the dream does not interpret itself]?" (Dan. 2:26).

If scripture is supported by another scripture/s we have a witness/es...therefore nothing can be left to interpretation...are you with me?

"…that in the mouth of TWO OR THREE WITNESSES every word may be established" (Matt. 18:16).

Witness One: "…In the mouth of TWO OR THREE WITNESSES shall every word be established" (II Cor. 13:1).

Witness Two: "And I will give power unto my TWO WITNESSES…" (Rev. 11:3).

You see, radarmark...the thing with theologians is they constantly violate this law of scripture. We are to have at least a second witness to establish a Scriptural truth or doctrine.

From now on, if I am to make a claim, I will present AT LEAST two different verses of scripture. You should too...that way nothing can be left to interpretation.

 

[radarmark]

Sigh, you miss the entire point.

When analyzing the content of, say, a shark's stomach one does not just rely on the contents. You van verify what the contents are (check for consistency). Say you find a foot and you know Teresa was attacked by one yesterday and she lost a foot. One must go outside of the system under study to validate (look for additional, external evidence). By, say, taking a DNA sample and comparing it to Teresa's DNA. That is proof.

By using the scripture as is own validation "This is why scripture must ALWAYS be supported" followed by a bunch of scriptural quotes is gibberish. You can verify (check consistency) that way. But you cannot validate.

My view is "the scripture" is a set of agreed to Hebrew and Greek words (OT and NT). Anything scriptural must be using those words (not a translation or a concordance--which are just opinions). And one must interpret to understand. For example I gave you six interpretations of Luke's genealogy (and what the actual text says "Joseph of Heli"--period). They range from the literal textual basis "this or Matthew's genealogy must be wrong because the contractict each other" to the (recent, and I believe flawed, invention of Lightfoot "it is Mary's genealogy"--which was never claimed by anyone before that and which he painfully pastes together from outside clues). Which one is right? I do not know. I do not believe anyone can know. One can believe one more than another (I like Jesus was the natural son of Joseph, you like Lightfoot's invention). Big deal.

Any more said on this subject seems like it is off-topic ("The Pauline Paradox"). If you want further discussion start a thread on something like "Biblical Interpretation"). We differ, I respect your view but do not believe it.

 

[Azure24]

My view is "the scripture" is a set of agreed to Hebrew and Greek words (OT and NT). Anything scriptural must be using those words (not a translation or a concordance--which are just opinions).

Okay. I agree with this also. Where have I given you a translation or opinion?

...And one must interpret to understand. For example I gave you six interpretations of Luke's genealogy (and what the actual text says "Joseph of Heli"--period). They range from the literal textual basis "this or Matthew's genealogy must be wrong because the contractict each other" to the (recent, and I believe flawed, invention of Lightfoot "it is Mary's genealogy"--which was never claimed by anyone before that and which he painfully pastes together from outside clues). Which one is right? I do not know. I do not believe anyone can know. One can believe one more than another (I like Jesus was the natural son of Joseph, you like Lightfoot's invention). Big deal.

For some reason you seem stuck on the genealogy theory for proving Joseph is the biological father of Jesus. What I'm saying is we can disagree all day...theologians have made a life study of the genealogies, and there are several theories extant. Surely this is proof that proving anything based on genealogy ALONE is going to be difficult.

Instead, it is best to look at all OTHER evidence...namely the ones I have given you in my previous post (which you have ignored).

Any more said on this subject seems like it is off-topic ("The Pauline Paradox"). If you want further discussion start a thread on something like "Biblical Interpretation"). We differ, I respect your view but do not believe it.

If you still refuse to be believe Jesus is really the Son of God (and NOT in a metaphorical way) then I must give OTHER evidence (which I have).

I have shown you scriptures that say Jesus Christ sprung out from Judah...that He is the son of David.

This immediately dispels the notion that Jesus could not be the Messiah.

I have shown you scripture that says Jesus was aware that He was the Son of God despite only being 12 and no one having told him...in fact His parents didn't even understand.

So there you have it, there is NO paradox. And I have further evidence with the ACTUAL words...not translations or opinions.

 

[Ben Masada]

I'm not defending or attacking Paul. Paul comes to us through the tradition of the church. I'm not sure what scapegoating means to you, but in the modern sense of the term that is what you are making Paul into and simultaneously letting everyone else off of responsibility. If Paul is responsible for these evils, then we aren't. It doesn't change anything except that it allows you to accept Christian tradition minus Paul, but you must know its the same as it was with him. Its still the same thing, same people, same same. We ourselves tell ourselves that the reason we've had pogroms and persecutions is that we misunderstood the scriptures, but surely you realize that this is a lie. The reason we have done it is much much worse, and it begins with the fact that Jewish people have always pretty much stood out from the crowd. You dress strangely, and you rear your children differently. It is too convenient when we want to blame somebody for something or when superstition and rumors grow. Its like you're the whipping boy. Have you ever heard of this concept? Long ago a king had a son who was unruly and disrespectful to his tutors, but the tutors were afraid to discipline him for fear of reprisals. The king assigned to him a poor boy to be his friend, to play with and to study with him, and to take a beating whenever that son was disrespectful or performed poorly. The kings son eventually learned to sympathize with his friend's sufffering and behaved himself and the whipping boy was greatly rewarded. Ok, lets say he was adopted. The end. I'm not saying you are not equal or have not received huge blessings, but I'm saying that sometimes society's growth has come at your expense as if you were a whipping boy. Naturally you want to know why you keep getting spanked, but its not because of Paul.

Well, my friend, the only thing I have left to say after reading this post of yours above is that if Paul had not founded Christianity after that year he spent in the Nazarene synagogue of Antioch, according to Acts 11:26, we would not have lost so many Jews. To be really bold at it, I dare to say that most probably, we would not have had the Holocaust.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

What?

"And all (JEWS) bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said (JEWS at the Synagogue), Is not this JOSEPH'S SON?" (Luke. 4:22)

"The JEWS then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they (JEWS) said, Is not this Jesus, the son of JOSEPH, whose FATHER and mother WE KNOW? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" (John. 6:41-42)

Have you read the Bible BTW?

BTW, do you believe that a Jew would proclaim himself god or the son of god without being looked at as an insane person? I don't think so. Do you believe that Jesus was a Jewish man? Yes. Good! So, he did not say the words you have mentioned above. They were written by Hellenists about 50+ years after Jesus had been gone. They were probably desperate to create a bible against and contrary to the Jewish Scriptures, as a replacement of the Jewish Theology.

Now, I want you to understand that I honestly want to believe that Jesus was a biological son of Joseph's who was legally married to Mary. But Christians are to blame for the bad news that Jesus was born as a result of a Roman soldier's rape because of their claim that Jesus was not a real son of Joseph's. So, if Jesus is supected of being what you don't want to hear, blame rather yourselves for the bed you have made and now find hard to sleep in it.
Ben

 

[Azure24]

BTW, do you believe that a Jew would proclaim himself god or the son of god without being looked at as an insane person? I don't think so. Do you believe that Jesus was a Jewish man? Yes. Good! So, he did not say the words you have mentioned above.

And yet the words are there...

They were written by Hellenists about 50+ years after Jesus had been gone. They were probably desperate to create a bible against and contrary to the Jewish Scriptures, as a replacement of the Jewish Theology.

Nice theory, but that is all it is. Unless there is scripture in the OT warning of it.

Now, I want you to understand that I honestly want to believe that Jesus was a biological son of Joseph's who was legally married to Mary.

I know you do, but He was the Son of God. Also, I am not a Christian as you know it.

Well, my friend, the only thing I have left to say after reading this post of yours above is that if Paul had not founded Christianity after that year he spent in the Nazarene synagogue of Antioch, according to Acts 11:26, we would not have lost so many Jews. To be really bold at it, I dare to say that most probably, we would not have had the Holocaust.
Ben

Then you fail to realise it is human nature that people murder one another.

The reasons are futile...the Holocaust didn't necessarily happen because the Jews were Jews, but because people are different.

Paul did not preach that Jews should be murdered.