normally, i do not get involved in biblical debate, being that i am a doubting atheist, but a friend of mine made a comment that struck a nerve with me, probably because her mentality seems to echo those of jws.
the question was asked if all humans are considered "god's children" (was not asked by be, of course).
this was her response:.
Narkissos,
I like that quote from Wisdom of Solomon. I know there is some dispute as to its origin, but if it really dates back to Solomon, or at least was known by the early 1st C. AD, that passage must have been in the minds of those who watched Jesus being crucified.
"He trusted in God; let Him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God." (Mt. 27:43)
normally, i do not get involved in biblical debate, being that i am a doubting atheist, but a friend of mine made a comment that struck a nerve with me, probably because her mentality seems to echo those of jws.
the question was asked if all humans are considered "god's children" (was not asked by be, of course).
this was her response:.
In the Bible, there is sonship via the biological connection, there is sonship by adoption, and there is also sonship based on someone sharing attitudes, personality, or interests with an older person (e.g., Paul refers to Timothy as his ?true son in the faith?). In our culture, we say, ?Like father, like son,? or ?The apple doesn?t fall too far from the tree? to indicate that the son shares attitudes, interests, or behaviors with his natural father.
The Bible teaches not only that we are all descended from the original humans God created, but also that everyone owes their existence to God, so in that sense, God is the father of all people. Then, there is also sonship by adoption into His kingdom, but embracing God?s attitudes as our own is part of this status, and this is the sonship that is most important.
On the subject of it being ?judgmental? for God not to automatically include everyone into his family, I don?t see how. If someone or some organization offers us a chance to join if we meet certain criteria and we refuse, how is that discriminatory? We don?t like the conditions? So we don?t join, but how can we complain? It?s our choice. God will honor our choice, either to be with him or apart from him.
(By the way, this ?Fatherhood of all people? concept is partly why I don?t believe in annihilation of the wicked at the end of time. God will not destroy the spirits he created because of the link with Himself, sharing an element of His nature, but the corrupted/wicked cannot be allowed to co-exist with the righteous, so there is a resurrection of both the righteous and wicked, they are both given remade, indestructible bodies, and assigned to their respective destinies, either with God or apart from Him. This is my opinion, anyway.)
ok blondies review of the wt got me thinking, dan 12:4 speaks of somone 'roving about and knowledge becoming abundant'.
what a strange expression.
like most obscure passages they are easy to misuse as this weeks wt demonstrated (and others similarly)by saying roving about meant searching through the bible.
Interesting thread!
The Bible translations I checked all render it something like "many will run here and there, and knowledge will increase."
Considering this concerns the end times, it brings to my mind something different and off-the-wall: I hear many people, especially in government, say that education is the answer to our social woes. It seems that our society has adopted the belief that if we just have enough information, we can solve any problem. So we have developed computers, satellites, and all kinds of technological innovations to collect and process information. Well, granted problems are solved, and even avoided, by having the right information, but where I see a problem is when ungodly actions create problems and even calamity, and we focus entirely on securing enough information to solve the problem, and don't pay attention to the spiritual condition that created the particular problem to begin with. This is all part of dropping God out, and even setting ourselves up as gods. So when we get into trouble, we won't turn to God, we will turn to scientists. Even beyond that, some people turn to mediums and psychics for information?clearly not in God's will.
So, maybe this "running around, increasing knowledge" refers to the way the world will attempt to handle the events of the end times?"If we can just collect enough information?both from conventional and unconventional sources?we can control these situations.
Now let me ask you, would you want to rely on the CIA for intelligence on the antichrist?
i was doing some research for one of my courses and i discovered that the geneology of jesus, outlined in matthew chapter 1 and luke chapter 3, are different.
does anyone know why?
By "eyewitness accounts," I was referring to the Gospel texts in general, not specifically the genealogies.
I have been reading Geza Vermes's book Jesus in His Jewish Context, and this thread seemed to address the same kind of issues the author does, so I was making a generalization.
When I went back to review the chapter "Son of David" in F. F. Bruce's book New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes, I was reminded that Jesus didn't play the Davidic heritage card, instead referring to himself as the "son of man" (which I realize is, itself, controversial). Perhaps this is because he didn't see being a descendent of David by itself as significant, but the disciples, beginning with Peter at Pentecost, did. Maybe they had to bring in the genealogy when they began teaching about Jesus being an acceptable sacrifice because of the virgin birth, which would have brought up the issue "If he was not a biological son of Joseph, how could he be a descendent of David?"
The fact that Mark doesn't refer to a genealogy doesn't bother me because it is somewhat of an abbreviated account, which may actually speak against the idea that later scribes added genealogies to the original accounts. Why not put one in Mark and John, too?
i was doing some research for one of my courses and i discovered that the geneology of jesus, outlined in matthew chapter 1 and luke chapter 3, are different.
does anyone know why?
Narkissos,
First of all, I want to say that I really appreciate your scholarly approach to these topics.
On the issue of "burden of proof," I think if this subject was approached objectively, the historical and circumstantial evidence, and lack of contradictory evidence equally supported, should allow the Gospel texts to remain as we have them now and to accept the eyewitness accounts of events at face value. Certainly, the interpretation of those events is open to speculation, and we may never have the tools to verify any particular position, which makes each person's opinion of the "truth" a matter of choice. Nevertheless, I believe there is an "absolute truth," and each person owes it to themselves to accept personal responsibility to do their best to determine what that is and align their view with it. To adopt any view simply because a charismatic person or group says, "Only I (we) have the truth," or because it is a tradition of the social group one is part of is, to me, morally and intellectually irresponsible.
i was doing some research for one of my courses and i discovered that the geneology of jesus, outlined in matthew chapter 1 and luke chapter 3, are different.
does anyone know why?
I am in the process of examining all the references from this thread (including the Testament of Benjamin) and the other one that is linked to it by peacefulpete.
This is my view on the issues so far:
GR Gaudreau, in the Fortunecity web page, devotes a considerable amount of space to deal with the phrase ?as was supposed? from Luke 3:23 (?And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli??). It looks to me that Luke is simply is saying that it was assumed among the people that Jesus was the physical son of Joseph (even if they did suspect that Mary was pregnant before the marriage). But Luke knows otherwise, as he has just given the account, so he preferred not to say ?being the son of Joseph.? (I?m sure Mary didn?t make a big deal about what Gabriel had told her??she kept these things in her heart.? Of course, very few would have believed it anyway.)
Mark 12:35ff:
While Jesus was teaching in the temple, he said, "How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, by the Holy Spirit, declared,
'The Lord said to my Lord,
"Sit at my right hand,
until I put your enemies under your feet." '
David himself calls him Lord; so how can he be his son?" And the large crowd was listening to him with delight.
I would say that this indicates the Messiah was expected to be the son of David. But Jesus catches them off guard when he quotes the Psalm. The Jews had an incomplete understanding of what kind of individual the Messiah would be, where the spirits of the departed went, the resurrection, and the future kingdom. (This statement by Jesus comes soon after the Sadducees confront him with the question of ?whose wife will she be at the resurrection??) On hearing Jesus ask this, the real question in their minds could be, ?If this was David speaking, how can he refer to a descendent, born long after his death, as his Lord?
The same is echoed in John 7:41ff:
Others said, "This is the Messiah." But some asked, "Surely the Messiah does not come from Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David and comes from , the village where David lived?"
So there was a division in the crowd because of him.
As Matthew explained, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but spent most of his life in Galilee. To me, this simply indicates that the people didn?t have accurate information about Jesus. To some, this issue was important, to others, it was not .
That Jesus was in the line of David seems fundamental to the proclamation to the Jews that Jesus was the promised Messiah, found not only in the Gospels, but also used by Paul. To refute that, it would be necessary to produce a genealogy in a historically reliable document that shows Jesus was not in the line of David, something which, to my knowledge, has not been done, even in the early 1 st century when the records were still available (there is no mention in Acts or anywhere else in the NT of any opposition based on this).
I understand the point of view that these accounts may have been doctored to force Jesus into the line of David, but in the absence of hard evidence for that, I think it is best to let the record we have stand.
(Sorry for so many edits, but I've had some trouble with this feature.)
i was doing some research for one of my courses and i discovered that the geneology of jesus, outlined in matthew chapter 1 and luke chapter 3, are different.
does anyone know why?
Hi Narkissos,
Isn't at least part of the reason for including the genealogies to show that Jesus, being in the line of David, was heir to the promise of 2 Samuel 7:12-14? Matthew, the most Jewish of the Gospels, often remarks how certain events fulfilled OT prophecy, and in Luke's account, Gabriel told Mary, "?the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.? (Luke 2:32b-33, KJV). Some people who approached Jesus addressed him as ?son of David.? Therefore, it seems that being in the line of David was understood to be a fundamental characteristic of the Annointed One.
I would be glad to check any references you give that are contrary to this.
P.S.: I like the way Eusebius brings Mary into the picture. It answers one of the other questions in this thread.
as i was growing up i remember that we, as jehovah's witnesses, took great pride in showing people god's name in their own bible.
we were the only religion(or so i was told anyway) that used god's name.
our bible, the new world translation, put god's name back where it belonged.
For the Hebrews, names referred to some characteristic or significant event associated with that person.
Although God has a lot of different names in the OT, when Moses wanted a particular name, my feeling is that God wanted to give him something that communicated his most important and distinctive characteristic?his eternal nature. By saying "I AM," I think He was saying that he has always been, is, and always will be (from our linear perspective)?beyond time and space, for Whom all time is in His present.
However the Name was actually pronounced, I don't think it was meant to be hidden, but I guess some were afraid of misusing it.
i was doing some research for one of my courses and i discovered that the geneology of jesus, outlined in matthew chapter 1 and luke chapter 3, are different.
does anyone know why?
Thank you very much for the reference, Narkissos. I thought it was a reasonable explanation, and since it is supported by someone relatively close in time to when the Gospels were written, it has to be considered at least a good possibility. It's more reasonable to me than throwing out the texts just because we don't have all the pieces to the puzzle.
i was doing some research for one of my courses and i discovered that the geneology of jesus, outlined in matthew chapter 1 and luke chapter 3, are different.
does anyone know why?
Is it possible that Joseph was adopted, or that his mother's husband died and he was fathered by one of his uncles? That way one of the genealogies is a legal one (possibly Matthew's) and the other is a biological one. Is that reasonable?
