Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Paul - Mary genealogy
""Matthews audience was to the Jewish converts. They knew better.""

Firstly, that is not proof that a woman's genealogy cannot be made. Secondly, to whom was Luke addressed?

""Mary's genealogy listed in Luke shows the bloodline, not the title.

Mary's father is Heli, not joseph.""

This is assumed from your belief that Luke gives Mary's genealogy. Circular logic, really.
Luke ties both genealogies together, but ultimately it's the bloodline carried through to Mary, not the title.

He held the title, she held the bloodline.

I'm gonna leave this for now, I'm asking that you take what I have said here and think about it. Decisions should be carefully drawn up, and I would not want you to think that I started this with you to just battle.

This site promote truth, and I admire that fully. There are mistakes with every translation, but I don't think this is one that should be added in.
Akhi Dave,

You're opinion has been duly noted, and I disagree with it wholeheartedly.

Luke is giving Joseph's lineage as a plain reading of the text shows - the Aramaic is clear as daylight - it says "Yosef bar Heli."


I know the Jews weren't accustomed to giving women's lineages - they also weren't accustomed to giving the lineage of someone who didn't have a father, only had a mother.

Mattai is giving the blood lineage - Luke is giving the title lineage. This is the reason for the wildly divergent lineages and number of generations.

The translation and the article will remain as is - but thanks anyway for your input.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Taking a word out of context is major bad joojoo. And I'm sure you understand the implications of it. There is no way for me to believe that this particular word, which has a dual application in this instance, was to mean that the lineage that Matthew was tracing was Mary's. Your straining at gnats here to prove the Peshitta and Aramaic rather than ensure it befits Hebrew custom, and checking it against it. NO ONE with any sort of credentials will take anything at complete face value without doublechecking it. In this case, the things you look for are the customs of the day that the writer is used to, and the particulars involved. I'm sure we are all aware of the antiquity of Matthews writing, and at best, it holds a position of being the most likely source that was translated from Hebrew.

No war here on the language part. Just echoing the consensus of many others through the ages, who have put forth countless hours trying to understand everything.

Matthew's writing would not list a woman within the direct genealogy. That was the adherence within the custom of the Hebrews of the day. The listing of Women within a genealogy, as a practice, did not become the normal custom till after the first century or so. This information

Paul, take some time to look into the customs of the day, rather than go strictly by a theory, just because a word has a dual meaning. A truley great translator and scholar will do just that.
again the dual meaning is no justification. And it was brought down through the Jewish tradition about Mary's father being Eli

b.It is indirectly confirmed by Jewish tradition. Lightfoot cites from the Talmudic writers concerning the pains of hell, the statement that Mary the daughter of Heli was seen in the infernal regions, suffering horrid tortures. This statement illustrates, not only the bitter animosity of the Jews towards the Christian religion, but also the fact that, according to received Jewish tradition, Mary was the daughter of Heli; hence, that is her genealogy in Luke

This is on the page i posted earlier. In haste, I think no one payed attention to it. As you can tell, there is documentation of Mary's father, and it is not Joseph.

Are you truely desiring to uplift the peshitta to the point that you ignore the obvious here? Is everyone really searching this to be sure, such as I am, or are they just being a part of the scholarly consensus here?

I said, your objections and your opinion have been noted and I thanked you for them.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
So you plan on ignoring the talmud writers about this?

That is unwise on your part, you do realize this, right?

I ignore a lot of what the Talmud says, actually everything it says.

The Talmud is not an authority for me, the Aramaic sriptures are. The Aramaic scriptures read "Yosef bar-Heli" in the third chapter of Luqa.

I don't care what Ignatius, Chrysostom.... let alone the Talmud says about the topic. The only thing I care about is the text.

I have nothing further to add. I told you that your opinion is noted. Stop pestering me about this. End of story.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Just wanted to make sure your wrong was thoroughly pointed out for you, if I didn't do that, I wouldn't be one of the elect.

stick by your decision and set your course.

Good day.
Thanks Dave! I'm really honored that one of the elect is so concerned about me.

Now to my concern about you - pick up a cheap book from and learn some Aramaic!
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Why shouldn't I be. God's blessing is upon what you do, and I'm sure you wouldn't desire to loose that.

So yes, I should note when your wrong. And yes, I am one of the elect, my actions speak.

"be doers of the word" Just like the Lord said.

When you look at yourself in the mirror - you wink back, don't you?

Admit it! You do, don't you?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Paul, just ignore him, it is obvious what he tries to do. he comes here proclaiming that we have not the Spirit and that he is the greatest Christian since Jesus... even though he knows less than me.

Go back to more fruitful work, like getting me a rhyming transliteration of the Beatitudes <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> Once I have that, I can send you the 4th compo.

Yours in "Akhiness",

In reality, I don't have to learn a bit of aramaic. It's quite easy for me to compare different translations from others who are more learned than even yourself here, in this case. For example:

Murdock: the husband of Mary

Etheridge: husband of Mariam

Lamsa: husband of Mary

These guys are of considerable worth when it comes to Aramaic, and they speak for me.
They also happen to be a little... I don't know... DEAD. How can anyone correct them and they acknowledge it now? Let this be my last post towards you. I have had enough. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)