homoousios

Discussion in 'Theology' started by wil, May 28, 2015.

  1. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Likes Received:
    147
    Therein lies one of the Gospel discrepencies...

    The Gospel of Matthew goes to great length to include the genealogy of Yashua's father Yosef, through King David and back to Abraham.

    The Gospel of Mark, generally considered the oldest of the Gospels, omits any genealogy entirely.

    The Gospel of Luke opens with Miriam's cousin Elisabeth and her husband Zacharias who happens to be a priest of the Temple, telling the story of the conception and birth of John the Baptist. (Little told story, John Baptist and Jesus were cousins, according to Luke) This implies Miriam was of the house of Levi.

    The Gospel of John is completely silent on genealogy (not unexpected as it is the odd duck anyway, the other three often referred to as the "Synoptic Gospels" as they do agree in large part, whereas John charts quite a different course).

    The way I understand the deal, the Messiah was to be of both the House of David (Judah) as well as the Priestly lineage (Levi). Strange that if Yashua had no earthly father that Yosef's genealogy is even bothered with...it would be irrelevant...but I suppose it is an attempt to tie Yashua to the line of the King. Miriam on the other hand, if Luke is to be believed, was of the House of Levi (the priestly line). The only way Yashua could fulfill both parts is if we count Yosef's paternity...which is null and void if Yosef wasn't Yashua's actual "father."

    Bit of a conundrum, but certainly not the first that had some serious "workarounds" developed as the doctrine was more formally set.

    Aside, but important... the Synoptic Gospels are considered to have been built on and from each other...meaning Mark was first...short, direct, to the point...and there are a few passages that are seriously questioned (such as the woman at the well). Matthew is thought to have come some time later and built upon Mark. Luke was traditionally considered to be Paul's running buddy, and the Gospel is only the first half of his narrative, the second half being the book of Acts...the two can be read one after the other. Luke built upon Matthew. And that is, loosely and broadly, how most "neutral" scholars tend to view the development of the Synoptic Gospels.

    ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2015
  2. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    I'm not sure what interpretations you mean. My point is, the Arian dispute was not at all to do with Christ's human nature, but the nature of His divine nature. There was no 'mortal substance' debate, that's the point.
     
  3. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    Where d'you get that from? If you're talking about the Transfiguration, the traditional exegesis is quite different.

    Again, I'd ask where it says that?
     
  4. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,270
    Likes Received:
    1,689
    a priest in the order of Melchizedek.... there is that... and the 'Who do the people say that I am?" and then as a Jew...and a Christian, studying scripture is surely being coached by Moses and the Prophets...
     
  5. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    Hi juantoo3. In an above post, you say "Indeed, if the Gospels are to be believed (and I really want to believe)..." – well I would not wish to contend with you on that, but I might suggest that looking for all the 'discrepancies' as you see them is not going to help you to believe. It's this kind of argument I meet in someone who argues reasons not to believe.

    The 'discrepancies' of course, do not help nor hinder. There are scholars far more steeped in the texts than you and I, and find these and other questions no impediment to belief.

    Your 'discrepancy', by the way, is the least of the puzzles scholars see in the genealogy accounts, and I think rests on an overtly literal reading of the text.

    Yes and no. Matthew sets up a pattern, and then breaks it. But such pattern breaks are a feature of his gospel. It puts the Incarnation in context.

    Matthew's genealogy splits into three sets of 14 (according to 1:17), based on Hebrew gematria David has the numerical value 14. It also splits the whole of Israel's history at convenient points. So the general scholarly consensus is that Matthew's genealogy is not a historical genealogy, but a schema of salvation history from Abraham. The 'educated' Jew would know this, because it was an acceptable practice, but also because five names have been dropped from the second list of fourteen ...

    As for the Lucan line, this too is Davidic, although there are more differences than similarities. Of the latter, the tracing of the lineage through Joseph and the same names between David and Abraham. Of the differences, Luke makes no references to the women mentioned in Matthew, Luke traces Jesus back to Adam (beyond Abraham), Luke's is an ascending order.

    Scholars agree Luke is using a different genealogy list to Matthew, with 36 unique names unknown to Matthew and the OT. Again numerology figures, Luke's list is 77 names, or eleven times seven, God is 77, David is 42 ... in both Matthew and Luke the genealogy is not a matter of lineage, it's founded on a more esoteric point, and points to Christ as the culmination of God's plan for the salvation of man.

    Not really. I rather think the 'workarounds' are yours, to come up with a reading that supports your thesis. Certainly your 'workarounds' to posit Christ's divinity as an innovation of Nicea faces significant discrepancies, and yet you're happy to stand by your reading of the events.

    As for the 'Synoptic Problem', suffice to say, if you think you have a simple answer, you really don't understand the problem!
     
  6. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,270
    Likes Received:
    1,689
    Nah.... You all are very versed in your studies and your arguments and your defenses....

    I find the numerology interesting coming from you thomas....
     
  7. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    I'm not sure what you're nah-ing.

    Really? I've made a claim to Christian Hermeticism more than once. The numbers thing is affirmed by scholarly consensus. I part company is with those who try and work some 'secret', 'hidden' or 'other' message in Scripture.
     

Share This Page