Lee Strobel Coming to Visit

[excreationist]

The genealogies are there because the mainstream Jewish folk view the Jesus people as a cult. Matthew 1 is a plea of "We're not a cult!!!"

Can you provide any Bible verses or links that clearly agree with this?

You mean other than Matthew 1 leading the New Testament and a whole bunch of Jewish fan-fic after the gospels?

Why does a genealogy just mean that Christians aren't a cult? Can you find a single Bible commentary that also says this?

What about the genealogies in Luke 3? Is it also about "we're not a cult!!!" ?

The question is why does the New Testament begin with Matthew... why is Matthew 1 as it is. Books are designed, especially the Tanakh/Bible.

So you're focusing on the genealogy in Matthew but don't want to say a single thing on the other genealogy in Luke?

So indeed, ask 'Why start off the New Testament with a list of genealogies to link a person who resurrected, when the resurrection is what identifies Jesus as who he is?'

Mark was written first. Are you saying the people who chose to put Matthew first did so because they wanted the genealogies to show that Christians aren't a cult?

Let me tell about the man who raised a person from death.

Who was his great great grandfather?
What?
The man who rose the other guy from the dead, who was his great-great-great-great-great grandfather?
Why does it matter? He raised someone from the dead, why does it matter who his great five times over grandfather was?!
Getting a bit self-defensive here.
He died and came back.
Do we know anything about his aunt?

In the John 7:41-42 verses I mentioned earlier some in the crowd said that Jesus wasn't the Messiah because they didn't think his ancestor was King David. At that stage Jesus hadn't been raised from death yet. And if Jesus' ancestors were completely irrelevant then why are there two genealogies in the gospels? Something about Christians not being a cult? In your example the person could say in response to why does it matter - "because if he has the wrong ancestors then his followers are the cult"?

 

[Swammerdami]

However, I'd be interested in is

The Gospels testify that Jesus performed miracles and resurrects from death. So why does the New Testament open with a political plea regarding the origins of Jesus as if the miracles/resurrection only matters if he is related to the right people? Presumably if someone today resurrected from death, no one would be asking 'But who is his great great great grandfather?'

I think the purpose of the genealogies is to "prove" that Jesus fulfilled prophecies about the Messiah:

The Genealogies of Jesus

Are the genealogies accurate?

guide4christmas.com

Except, he resurrected! That is the miracle of all miracles... well that and getting Firefly back on the air.

If Jesus didn't fulfill a single prophecy, he still resurrected. The entire religion hangs on that one thing. Abraham, David... doesn't matter. The Resurrection matters! And really only the resurrection matters.

So for them to lead off and go into relationships and prophecies, one has to wonder... about the legitimacy of the other much more important claim.

As I noted, if a person Resurrected and came back to life today, no one is asking who their progeny was 8 generations ago. People might be interested, but it ain't going to be important.

Very clever Mr. Higgins. As you've probably already guessed

Spoiler: Spoiler Alert

A real Resurrection never even happened.

I think Bishop Spong does a good job of guessing how a Resurrection Myth might have developed. Simon (Peter) was central to the mythmaking. Both Palm Sunday (which Spong places at the first Feast of Tabernacles AFTER the Crucifixion) and Last Supper stories are presented like midrash. (The story of the fig-tree may be a designed signal of the actual chronology.)

And the Resurrection itself was NOT after fictional Earthly appearances seen with the eyes like the wound examination by Thomas, but rather a spiritual belief that the Nazarene has risen to the right Hand of God the Father Almighty.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The genealogies are there because the mainstream Jewish folk view the Jesus people as a cult. Matthew 1 is a plea of "We're not a cult!!!"

Can you provide any Bible verses or links that clearly agree with this?

You mean other than Matthew 1 leading the New Testament and a whole bunch of Jewish fan-fic after the gospels?

Why does a genealogy just mean that Christians aren't a cult? Can you find a single Bible commentary that also says this?

I don't need a Bible commentary to tell me what to understand. Matthew 1 is an argument from authority fallacy. It is in there because the Jewish aren't buying it... so they use the Jewish geneologies and the authority within it to provide Jesus legitimacy. There is no other reason for it to be there, as it is.

What about the genealogies in Luke 3? Is it also about "we're not a cult!!!" ?

The question is why does the New Testament begin with Matthew... why is Matthew 1 as it is. Books are designed, especially the Tanakh/Bible.

So you're focusing on the genealogy in Matthew but don't want to say a single thing on the other genealogy in Luke?

Because Matthew 1 is presented first. That means there is a significance in the message of those who cut and pasted the New Testament together were trying to get across.

So indeed, ask 'Why start off the New Testament with a list of genealogies to link a person who resurrected, when the resurrection is what identifies Jesus as who he is?'

Mark was written first. Are you saying the people who chose to put Matthew first did so because they wanted the genealogies to show that Christians aren't a cult?

YES! Because the Jewish haven't swung into Jesus is the Messiah mode... that means the Jewish, in general, weren't buying the claims and the Jesus posse was a splinter cult divided from Judaism.

Let me tell about the man who raised a person from death.

Who was his great great grandfather?
What?
The man who rose the other guy from the dead, who was his great-great-great-great-great grandfather?
Why does it matter? He raised someone from the dead, why does it matter who his great five times over grandfather was?!
Getting a bit self-defensive here.
He died and came back.
Do we know anything about his aunt?

In the John 7:41-42 verses I mentioned earlier some in the crowd said that Jesus wasn't the Messiah because they didn't think his ancestor was King David. At that stage Jesus hadn't been raised from death yet.

Umm... yes "he" "had", that allegedly happened 70 or so years before John was finished up. By the time John is coming out, it is clear that this whole Jesus ain't happening. We can tell because we've transitioned from Jesus as Lord is coming back to Jesus was god prior to birth.

 

[excreationist]

Matthew 1 is an argument from authority fallacy. It is in there because the Jewish aren't buying it... so they use the Jewish geneologies and the authority within it to provide Jesus legitimacy.

I agree - same with the Luke 3 genealogies.

 

[Jarhyn]

My go-to for stumping religious persons is "why aren't you cutting your nuts off yet?" Courtesy of Matthew 19:12.

And if they ask me why I haven't yet...

 

[Learner]

My go-to for stumping religious persons is "why aren't you cutting your nuts off yet?" Courtesy of Matthew 19:12.

I suppose it depends on whether the 'religious persons' are understanding the scriptures in the same way you are. Stumped as you say, may just be the very expression - because they're hearing a foreign gospel.

And if they ask me why I haven't yet...

If you have, who did you do it for in the first place, if you don't believe in Christ?

 

[Jarhyn]

My go-to for stumping religious persons is "why aren't you cutting your nuts off yet?" Courtesy of Matthew 19:12.

I suppose it depends on whether the 'religious persons' are understanding the scriptures in the same way you are. Stumped as you say, may just be the very expression - because they're hearing a foreign gospel.

And if they ask me why I haven't yet...

If you have, who did you do it for in the first place, if you don't believe in Christ?

I'm waiting for an appointment. Provided you go through WPATH and applicable therapy, you can become a eunuch.

Some people are just happier than way; it's who they are. It classifies as "trans". Don't ask me why I'm this way, I don't know, I just remember wanting it in my tweens, teens, twenties, and thirties. It happens.

It was documented in Matthew as something some people did, and the people who did it were praised.

For me it has nothing to do with celibacy though.

 

[Learner]

The genealogies are there because the mainstream Jewish folk view the Jesus people as a cult. Matthew 1 is a plea of "We're not a cult!!!"

Can you provide any Bible verses or links that clearly agree with this?

You mean other than Matthew 1 leading the New Testament and a whole bunch of Jewish fan-fic after the gospels?

Why does a genealogy just mean that Christians aren't a cult? Can you find a single Bible commentary that also says this?

I'm intrigued with the concept of cult used in Mr. Higgins post. If Jesus and his people were a cult then the elites of the "pharisaic order" was then a "secret society".

No secrets or ritual privileges is neccessary to be a follower of Jesus - in the wide open, no Jew or Gentile, rich or poor, slave or free, etc & etc. are all one in Christ, as the scripture goes.

What about the genealogies in Luke 3? Is it also about "we're not a cult!!!" ?

The question is why does the New Testament begin with Matthew... why is Matthew 1 as it is. Books are designed, especially the Tanakh/Bible.

So you're focusing on the genealogy in Matthew but don't want to say a single thing on the other genealogy in Luke?

So indeed, ask 'Why start off the New Testament with a list of genealogies to link a person who resurrected, when the resurrection is what identifies Jesus as who he is?'

Mark was written first. Are you saying the people who chose to put Matthew first did so because they wanted the genealogies to show that Christians aren't a cult?

Mathew is believed by Christians to be written first because he was a tax collector. He had been using pen and paper materials, being that it was the requirement of his occupation for detailed documentation.. while the others were fishemen, who wouldn't have these materials to hand eveyday, writing things down even as they occured, as Mathew could, having that advantage.

 

[James Brown]

The Gospel of Mathew

It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.

It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience.

Emphasis mine.

 

[excreationist]

Mathew is believed by Christians to be written first

Gospel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110" i.e. Mark was first.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The Gospel of Mathew

It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.

It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience.

Emphasis mine.

Plus Eusebius is a propagandist.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Mathew is believed by Christians to be written first

Gospel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110" i.e. Mark was first.

He did say 'believed by xians'. So it doesn't have to have any basis in reality. If he said, "believed by scholars", then you could have a bone to pick with him.

 

[Learner]

Mathew is believed by Christians to be written first

Gospel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110" i.e. Mark was first.

Not all Scholars agree. I came across Malcolm Lowe a New-testament historian who published a paper:

The Demise of Arguments from Order for Markan Priority

In fact he demonstrates that Mark is more likely the third written of the gospels.

Which makes sense to me. In that Mathew and Luke who were both in professions that required strong writing skills who supposedly copied from Marks shorter gospel is an idea I couldn't quite understand (from a mere non-scholarly personal opinion, viewpoint of course).

 

[excreationist]

Mathew is believed by Christians to be written first

Gospel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110" i.e. Mark was first.

Not all Scholars agree. I came across Malcolm Lowe a New-testament historian who published a paper:

The Demise of Arguments from Order for Markan Priority

In fact he demonstrates that Mark is more likely the third written of the gospels.

Which makes sense to me. Being that Mathew and Luke who were both in professions that required strong writing skills who supposedly copied from Marks shorter gospel is an idea I couldn't quite understand (from a mere non-scholarly personal opinion, viewpoint of course).

Mark originally ended at verse 8 in chapter 16:
"Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."

If Mark was familiar with the endings of Matthew and Luke why did the story end there?

BTW note:

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16 - New International Version

Jesus Has Risen - When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, “Who will roll...

www.biblegateway.com

"[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]"

From Wikipedia:

Gospel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If Mark was written third I'd expect more than 3% of it to be unique (not found in Luke or Matthew).

I think Luke and Matthew are longer because they wanted to add additional miracle stories and they both also include (contradictory) genealogies, Christmas stories, etc. (Mark begins with a story about John the Baptist)

 

[Learner]

Mathew is believed by Christians to be written first

Gospel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110" i.e. Mark was first.

Not all Scholars agree. I came across Malcolm Lowe a New-testament historian who published a paper:

The Demise of Arguments from Order for Markan Priority

In fact he demonstrates that Mark is more likely the third written of the gospels.

Which makes sense to me. Being that Mathew and Luke who were both in professions that required strong writing skills who supposedly copied from Marks shorter gospel is an idea I couldn't quite understand (from a mere non-scholarly personal opinion, viewpoint of course).

Mark originally ended at verse 8 in chapter 16:
"Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."

If Mark was familiar with the endings of Matthew and Luke why did the story end there?

Ending at an early chapter is not a good reason to suggest Mark was first. Even if Mark was first that wouldn't be an issue anyway - however, the suggestion that Mathew and Luke copied from Mark is something else.

BTW note:

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16 - New International Version

Jesus Has Risen - When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, “Who will roll...

www.biblegateway.com

"[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]"

Regardless how much text is missing - that doesn't give any implication as to who wrote their gospel first.

 

[excreationist]

Regardless how much text is missing - that doesn't give any implication as to who wrote their gospel first.

Please also read the updates I made in my previous post. To me it seems the reason you’re supporting the Matthew first theory is you want me to be wrong.

 

[Learner]

If Mark was written third I'd expect more than 3% of it to be unique (not found in Luke or Matthew).

Perhaps if Mark had 'written a bit more', he would have given a little more of his unique self.

I think Luke and Matthew are longer because they wanted to add additional miracle stories and they both also include (contradictory) genealogies, Christmas stories, etc. (

Luke and Mathew 'naturally' would write more, simply because they were skilled in documentation.
The genealogies aren't contradictory depending on perspective (discussion for your thread on the topic). Adding the Christmas stories is a different discussion and can be discussed too.

(Mark begins with a story about John the Baptist)

(possibly you may have accidentally highlighted something quite useful. Will have to look into it)

 

[Learner]

Regardless how much text is missing - that doesn't give any implication as to who wrote their gospel first.

Please also read the updates I made in my previous post. To me it seems the reason you’re supporting the Matthew first theory is you want me to be wrong.

No, you could be right. As I said, even if Mark was first that wouldn't be a problem. I would say then in a likewise manner: people would want Christians to be wrong by making the assumption Mathew and Luke "copied" Mark.

 

[James Brown]

So we've gone from "Mathew is believed by Christians to be written first" to "Mathew is believed by one scholar to be written first."

And how do we conclude which Gospel was written first?

Based on everything we know about synoptic Gospels, it is easier to postulate that Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark while writing their narratives about the life of Jesus.

Scholars call this line of evidence an argument from Mark’s redaction profile. Redaction means the author’s changes to their source while composing a new story version.

It is contradictory to suggest that Mark wrote after Matthew and Luke, as the redaction profile of his Gospel implies otherwise.

If Matthew and Luke were indeed written first, and then Mark read them and decided to write his own Gospel--deliberately leaving out the birth and post-resurrection narratives--then Mark wrote an inferior gospel. Half a loaf may be better than no loaf, but it is far inferior to two whole loaves.

Your arguments are not very compelling.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The genealogies are there because the mainstream Jewish folk view the Jesus people as a cult. Matthew 1 is a plea of "We're not a cult!!!"

Can you provide any Bible verses or links that clearly agree with this?

You mean other than Matthew 1 leading the New Testament and a whole bunch of Jewish fan-fic after the gospels?

Why does a genealogy just mean that Christians aren't a cult? Can you find a single Bible commentary that also says this?

I'm intrigued with the concept of cult used in Mr. Higgins post. If Jesus and his people were a cult then the elites of the "pharisaic order" was then a "secret society".

No secrets or ritual privileges is neccessary to be a follower of Jesus - in the wide open, no Jew or Gentile, rich or poor, slave or free, etc & etc. are all one in Christ, as the scripture goes.

You seem to be not understanding the term "cult" here. They were outcasts. A splinter group that the majority didn't believe.

What about the genealogies in Luke 3? Is it also about "we're not a cult!!!" ?

The question is why does the New Testament begin with Matthew... why is Matthew 1 as it is. Books are designed, especially the Tanakh/Bible.

So you're focusing on the genealogy in Matthew but don't want to say a single thing on the other genealogy in Luke?

So indeed, ask 'Why start off the New Testament with a list of genealogies to link a person who resurrected, when the resurrection is what identifies Jesus as who he is?'

Mark was written first. Are you saying the people who chose to put Matthew first did so because they wanted the genealogies to show that Christians aren't a cult?

Mathew is believed by Christians to be written first because he was a tax collector. He had been using pen and paper materials, being that it was the requirement of his occupation for detailed documentation.. while the others were fishemen, who wouldn't have these materials to hand eveyday, writing things down even as they occured, as Mathew could, having that advantage.

Matthew, is also believed by other Christians to not be written first.