/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>610228

was wondering this as well

>genealogy

One of the few things I've ever agreed with that psychopath Steve Anderson on was his views of genealogy and how wack it is.

>>610237

He's right on a lot of things tbh. The biggest problem I have is that KJV > Greek/Heb/Aram original text (which makes no sense).

>>610240

well more of a madman

>>610239

>KJV > Greek/Heb/Aram

He's never said this, he said as an English speaker, your final authority should be the penultimate Bible God gives you in your language(which is, in English is clearly the KJV for many reasons)

The KJV-only position is not a position of holding up the KJV as God's Word inspired, it's a position of holding up that God's PERFECT Word exists, which is for many reasons, found in the KJV.

Watch this video if you're still confused(produced by Anderson, where he explains his position on the KJV and other topics.):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFtI_mVOXbQ

>>610239

He doesn't teach that, he just says that they're equal; and for the english layman it's better to trust the KJV than a preacher preaching out of a language that neither of them fully understand.

Takes the example of

>>610245

>>610247

I'll check it out. sorry to divert.

>>610253

>kike on a stick insult

i've been wondering what kind of people keep using that insult. muslims or jews? or just edgy neckbeards? nihilist varg shills?

>>610254

Why does that count though? If Mary and Joseph had adopted a kid, that wouldn't count, right?

Lots of people believe that Mary's genealogy is the one recorded in Luke, which makes sense since it's completely different than the one found in Matthew.

Matthew traces Jesus through kingly David and Abraham, and Joseph's position as an adopted father or step-father makes Jesus a valid prince, the King of the Jews.

That's how I'd explain it, dunno tbhfam

>>610270

This makes sense too, I never thought about that.

>>610228

Matthew and Luke's genealogies are about different things. Matthew is proving that Jesus has kingly ancestry. Kingship is patrilineal, even if the king adopts a child. So this was proving that Jesus's "father" was of the line of David. Luke's genealogy is traced through Mary, the purpose being to show Jesus was human. That's why it traces him back to Adam

>>610278

Actually, since this thread has brought up Anderson already. He did a very good explanation on these two genealogies

>>610247

He has said multiple times to ignore anyone who encourages going back to the autographs in Greek. That is putting the KJV above the words God wrote. I'd rather trust the words God wrote than some guy's attempt to translate from hebrew/greek into a tongue that didn't even exist at the time.

Translation isn't 1:1. Things will be lost or muddied. SA is wrong on this.

Jesus was still Joseph's legal heir, and the hardcore Jews, who Matthew was writing to, cared more about a person's legal lineage than their biological one. Also, Matthew's genealogy was very unconventional by Jewish standards. He listed the names females, gentile females at that, to convey that Gentiles are now to be equal in God's religion. He also breaks the genealogy into three groups of 14 by omitting less significant people in the lineage(a common biblical practice.) The leading theory for why he did that is because David's name in Hebrew is made up of three letters and has a numerical value of 14. Stuff like that was important to Jews back then.

>>610270

Yeah, the theory is that the reason Luke called Joseph the son of Heli is because the Greek language used during that time didn't have a word for son-in-law so he just went with son. Another one is that since Jewish genealogical tables, which Luke supposedly copied Jesus's genealogy, didn't allow female names, and since Mary had no brothers, Joseph is the only person whose name could have bridged the gap between Jesus and Heli. The famous Bishop Lightfoot claimed that this theory is supported by a passage in early rabbinic writings found in the Talmud that refers to a woman named "Miriam(the Hebrew/Aramaic version of Mary) the Daughter of Heli" and says she is "hanging by her breasts in hell with the gates of hell hanging from her earlobes" or something like that. That description bears the same amount of malice that the Virgin Mary is described with in other parts of the Talmud. (((Some people))) say that it's talking about a different Miriam/Mary, but those same (((people))) also admit they're not sure who it's talking about.

>People don't know their Biblical history

God placed a curse on King Jeconiah in Jeremiah 22:24-30 for Jeconiah's wickedness preventing the promised Messiah coming from Jeconiah's direct lineage. The right to kingship had to come by Mary's line and not Joesph's.

Interesting to note that Luke, a Hellenistic Jew writing for an Hellenistic audience strictly follows Jewish geneological customs while Matthew, a full Jew writing for an Israeli audience, follows the generic Graeco-Roman standards of the day and then some (like including women).

>>610301

Yes he has. He did a whole sermon on it.

At about 26:45 he says the the English KJV is his final authority, not the words the Bibical authors actually wrote. He has said multiple times to be suspect of anyone saying you should go back to the greek.

>>610326

>Interesting to note that Luke, a Hellenistic Jew writing for an Hellenistic audience strictly follows Jewish geneological customs while Matthew, a full Jew writing for an Israeli audience, follows the generic Graeco-Roman standards of the day and then some (like including women).

Does anyone know why this might be?

2. The evangelist Matthew has commenced his narrative in these terms: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. By this exordium he shows with sufficient clearness that his undertaking is to give an account of the generation of Christ according to the flesh. For, according to this, Christ is the Son of man — a title which He also gives very frequently to Himself, thereby commending to our notice what in His compassion He has condescended to be on our behalf. For that heavenly and eternal generation, in virtue of which He is the only-begotten Son of God, before every creature, because all things were made by Him, is so ineffable, that it is of it that the word of the prophet must be understood when he says, Who shall declare His generation? Matthew therefore traces out the human generation of Christ, mentioning His ancestors from Abraham downwards, and carrying them on to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born. For it was not held allowable to consider him dissociated from the married estate which was entered into with Mary, on the ground that she gave birth to Christ, not as the wedded wife of Joseph, but as a virgin. For by this example an illustrious recommendation is made to faithful married persons of the principle, that even when by common consent they maintain their continence, the relation can still remain, and can still be called one of wedlock, inasmuch as, although there is no connection between the sexes of the body, there is the keeping of the affections of the mind; particularly so for this reason, that in their case we see how the birth of a son was a possibility apart from anything of that carnal intercourse which is to be practised with the purpose of the procreation of children only. Moreover, the mere fact that he had not begotten Him by act of his own, was no sufficient reason why Joseph should not be called the father of Christ; for indeed he could be in all propriety the father of one whom he had not begotten by his own wife, but had adopted from some other person.

>>610350

3. Christ, it is true, was also supposed to be the son of Joseph in another way, as if He had been born simply of that man's seed. But this supposition was entertained by persons whose notice the virginity of Mary escaped. For Luke says: And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph. This Luke, however, instead of naming Mary His only parent, had not the slightest hesitation in also speaking of both parties as His parents, when he says: And the boy grew and became strong, filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was in Him: and His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. But lest any one may fancy that by the parents here are rather to be understood the blood relations of Mary along with the mother herself, what shall be said to that preceding word of the same Luke, namely, And His father and mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of Him? Since, then, he also makes the statement that Christ was born, not in consequence of Joseph's connection with the mother, but simply of Mary the virgin, how can he call him His father, unless it be that we are to understand him to have been truly the husband of Mary, without the intercourse of the flesh indeed, but in virtue of the real union of marriage; and thus also to have been in a much closer relation the father of Christ, in so far as He was born of his wife, than would have been the case had He been only adopted from some other party? And this makes it clear that the clause,as was supposed, is inserted with a view to those who are of opinion that He was begotten by Joseph in the same way as other men are begotten.

From "The Harmony of the Gospels

" of Saint Augustine

>>610237

What'd he say about it?

>>610245

Why settle for penultimate and not the ultimate: Douay rheims

>>610351

That's pretty gud

>>610261

It most certainly would count. Just as Gaius Octavius was the son of Caesar by adoption, so any adopted child of Joseph would be his son.

>>610644

>Why would the words the apostles wrote be the final authority?

Are you dense?

>>610710

The KJV is the word of the apostles.

>>610723

ya, st. paul was notorious for time traveling

>>610723

>The apostles wrote in 17th century English

Lol

>>610644

>Why would the actual word of God be his final authority and not a translation of it?

>>610725

>>610727

>>610747

>tfw will never be able to read the Word of God because I'm not greek

are you guys retarded or just pretending? God made his word available(and perfect) in all languages.

>>611055

>tfw the KJV descended from Heaven in 1611

>>611073

nice delusion of what i said

>>611074

It's no less ridiculous

>>611055

I agree with what the KJV translators said:

<Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.