|
Author
|
Topic: Critiquing the New Testament 101
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Hale:
The alleged contradicting genealogies in Matthew 1 ad Luke three are of his mother (Luke) and of his foster father Joseph (Matthew). The genealogy in Matthew is "telescoped" which is why it is shorter than the other. There appears to be a cross over (kinsman redeemer adoption in the two in the time of Shieltiel and Zerubbabel...
Genealogies were very important to the Jews, for without them they could not prove their tribal memberships or their rights to inheritances. Anyone claiming to be “the Son of David” had to be able to prove it. It is generally concluded that Matthew gave our Lord’s family tree through His foster father, Joseph, while Luke gave Mary’s lineage.
This list of names is a vital part of the Gospel record. It shows that Jesus Christ is a part of history; that all of Jewish history prepared the way for His birth. God in His providence ruled and overruled to accomplish His great purpose in bringing His Son into the world.
This genealogy also illustrates God’s wonderful grace. It is most unusual to find the names of women in Jewish genealogies, since names and inheritances came through the fathers. But in this list we find references to four women from Old Testament history: Tamar (Matt. 1:3), Rahab and Ruth (Matt. 1:5), and Bathsheba “the wife of Uriah” (Matt. 1:6).
Matthew clearly omitted some names from this genealogy. Probably, he did this to give a systematic summary of three periods in Israel’s history, each with fourteen generations. The numerical value of the Hebrew letters for “David” equals fourteen. Matthew probably used this approach as a memory aid to help his readers remember this difficult list.
But there were many Jewish men who could trace their family back to King David. It would take more than human pedigree to make Jesus Christ “the Son of David” and heir to David’s throne. This is why the divine heredity was so important.
Matthew 1:16 and 18 make it clear that Jesus Christ’s birth was different from that of any other Jewish boy named in the genealogy. Matthew pointed out that Joseph did not “beget” Jesus Christ. Rather, Joseph was the “husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” Jesus was born of an earthly mother without the need of an earthly father.
Every child born into the world is a totally new creature. But Jesus Christ, being eternal God (John 1:1, 14), existed before Mary and Joseph or any of His earthly ancestors. If Jesus Christ were conceived and born just as any other baby, then He could not be God. It was necessary for Him to enter this world through an earthly mother, but not to be begotten by an earthly father. By a miracle of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary, a virgin (Luke 1:26-38).
(Wiersbe)
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
I have also heard, but have been able to confirm that John Mark at some point was a disciple of Simon Peter and that the Gospel of Mark was essentially the input of Peter.
Such things interest me only so far.
The Gospels are a good place to camp for studying especially when using them as a deciphering key to unlock OT prophecies. In the NT we have the unconcealed truth almost in rapid fire fashion. But without the OT background and foretelling it is as seeing a program on a black and white television which gets the point across without the nuances of a color television by including the OT.
In more modern terms it would be like seeing all in low def NT and high def NT AND OT. Greater detail, depth of field sense of being in the scene etc.
I discovered this (for myself anyway) when I set out to be able to witness to Jewish people from just the OT since they reject the NT as just another religion book (like the NWT or the BofM).
And I was fascinated to discover how much NT is in the OT (all of it in fact). And that passages like 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 and 2 Timothy 2:15 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Acts 17:11 all apply to the NT but the NT was not in existence at the time these passages were written so they refer to the OT only. When they were written the NT did not exist yet.
So I had a greater appreciation of the OT other than the precursory groundbreaking or merely establishing a background that I had previously taken it for. That in it were many things (not all things obviously) for all generations of believers to keep.
I'll give a NT example:
Galatians 3:24-25 (KJV)
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
This would seem to suggest a freedom from the law and is where antinomianism was perceived... giving rise to Paul's response:
Romans 3:8 (KJV)
8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
Rather... there is a second law (another Torah) in scripture though it is rarely mentioned in those terms (at least overtly)...
1 Corinthians 9:19-21 (NIV)
19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.
20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (THOUGH I AM NOT FREE FROM GOD'S LAW BUT AM UNDER CHRIST'S LAW), so as to win those not having the law.
Here it is overt the contrast of Torah Moshe (Law of Moses) and Torah Moshiakh (Christ's Law / God's Law). Elsewhere it is mentioned but covertly (or rather in such a way it is often mistaken to mean the Law of Moses).
Example:
Jeremiah 31:31-34 (NIV)
31 “The time is coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put MY LAW in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”
The law of Moses? Or the Law of Christ? God's Law... which God would call "MY LAW."
IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
I do not understand why you believe the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written to Greeks and not Romans (and specifically a Roman barrister named Theophilus). Bearing in mind that "Greek" at the time of the writing was a common word for all non-Jews since the Greek universal language from the Alexandrian conquer age was still in place in the Roman Empire as the language of commerce.
Recall:
Acts 21:37 (KJV)
37 And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek?
This was a ROMAN centurian.
And I am not out to one up you. I was simply charged by you with ignorance of the NT (which I took offense by your presumption) but in living the example of the New Testament (as you accurately said is "a" manner of proving one knows the NT) I chose to open this thread in philadelphia style rather than sniping back.
And I believe we can all benefit from the discussion that ensues.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
John, IMHO the only way a person could prove he knows the New Testament is by living it - by living a life filled with the Holy Spirit of Christ.
But I do like the direction you're taking here, and I would enjoy talking about the New Testament with you. This is not meant to be a contest about who knows more than who; this is just sharing with everyone who reads it.
quote:
Originally posted by John Hale:
Did you know that it is most likely that the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were Doctor Luke's investigation into the background of Paul's appeal to Cesar as his trial documents?
That the book of Matthew is the testimony of the Jewishness of the Messiah and of his Kingship.
The Book of Mark is the testimony of the servanthood of Jesus (which is why there is no genealogy).
Luke is the testimony of his humanity. Non royal genealogy.
John is the testimony of his divinity. His genealogy is John 1:1 and John 1:14 here.
I have heard that before about Luke. I heard that he was trying to help Paul's defense by documenting the historical facts. But the Gospel record that Luke wrote was written to Greeks, not Romans.
We know Luke was with Paul during Paul's second imprisonment in Rome, and it is believed that 2 Timothy was Paul's last letter before he was killed.
2 Timothy 4:11 (NASB)
Only Luke is with me. Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service.
Here is a little info from Tyndale's iLumina Bible:
The Gospel According to Luke was written for a certain prominent individual named Theophilus (Luke 1:1). The Greek meaning of the name “Theophilus” is “lover of God.” Some interpreters theorize that the name may be symbolic for all Christians rather than referring to an actual person. But without clear proof for symbolism, “Theophilus” should probably be understood to be a real person to whom Luke addressed his two-volume work of the Gospel and Acts. The reference to this individual, however, was really a dedication characteristic of Greek and Roman literature. The work was clearly written for the benefit of Gentiles in general and Greeks in particular. As a result of Paul’s missionary journeys the gospel spread through the Greek world, and there developed a need for a gospel record that would speak to the Greek mind.
The Greek nature of the book can be seen in the fact that the genealogy was traced to Adam, the father of the human race, rather than Abraham, the father of the Hebrew nation. Luke avoided the use of Jewish terminology like “rabbi” and instead used “master” or “teacher.” Luke placed less emphasis on the fulfillment of prophecy, and he substituted Greek names for Hebrew names (cf. Luke 6:16; 23:33 with Mark 3:18). Abundant evidence indicates that Luke addressed his Gospel to Greek Gentiles. The Gospel of Luke was written before Acts (Acts 1:1) and after the development of Christianity to the point where it would attract the attention of a Gentile inquirer like Theophilus. The abrupt ending of Acts indicates that Luke concluded his writing at the end of Paul’s imprisonment in Rome in A.D. 62. The Gospel was composed prior to that, probably about A.D. 60. Paul’s two year imprisonment at Caesarea would have afforded Luke an opportunity to research and write the Gospel.
The book of Acts was probably written in Rome during or following Paul’s first imprisonment there (A.D. 60–62). That the work was published around A.D. 63 is indicated by the lack of reference to the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) or the persecution of the Christians by Nero following the fire of Rome in A.D. 64. There is no hint in Acts that Nero’s anti-Christian policy had yet manifested itself. The fact that Paul’s imprisonment and death (A.D. 67 or 68) were not recorded is also evidence that Acts was written around A.D. 63.
There is an interesting chart at this address showing the differences between the four Gospels.
http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/gospels/glance.asp
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by WildB:
![[roll on floor]](graemlins/6.gif) Check & Mate.
It is clear to all that Johnny needs to take his ball back home or find a "Spiritual Israel" BBS to play on.
Grace BBS + The"Spiritual Israel"logic = confusion.
.............AND WE KNOW
God is not the author of confusion only the enemy is.
![[cool_shades]](graemlins/cool_shades.gif)
If only the ignore feature worked. Then you'd just go away.
IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
2 Corinthians is believed to be the third letter to the Corinthians another letter is alluded to in on of the two letters that no longer exists or has yet to be found. And there is no certainty it would be in the canon if found.
Uh, let's see...
We can discuss why the Gospel of Thomas and similar writings were not canonized.
It's really hard to prove to one who sits in judgment of me just how very much I know about the New Testament and unlike you I do not have a data base of cut and paste articles to quote from but rather the Bible itself and my studies and readings and listening (audio cassettes and CD's) over the last 30 years.
Been a believer for 45 years but did not get into the Word until 1980.
IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
The alleged contradicting genealogies in Matthew 1 ad Luke three are of his mother (Luke) and of his foster father Joseph (Matthew). The genealogy in Matthew is "telescoped" which is why it is shorter than the other. There appears to be a cross over (kinsman redeemer adoption in the two in the time of Shieltiel and Zerubbabel...
IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
Did you know that it is most likely that the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were Doctor Luke's investigation into the background of Paul's appeal to Cesar as his trial documents?
That the book of Matthew is the testimony of the Jewishness of the Messiah and of his Kingship.
The Book of Mark is the testimony of the servanthood of Jesus (which is why there is no genealogy).
Luke is the testimony of his humanity. Non royal genealogy.
John is the testimony of his divinity. His genealogy is John 1:1 and John 1:14 here.
IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Hale:
quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
You prove me wrong
How then shall I prove you wrong?
Shall I drill you by what I know? Will you drill me by what you know? Shall we discuss how the NT was canonized? The various Greek families of texts?
IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
You prove me wrong
How then shall I prove you wrong?
IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
Check & Mate.
It is clear to all that Johnny needs to take his ball back home or find a "Spiritual Israel" BBS to play on.
Grace BBS + The"Spiritual Israel"logic = confusion.
.............AND WE KNOW
God is not the author of confusion only the enemy is.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
I am being a bit impatient here, but in another thread I was told by a moderator here that I am too ignorant of the New Testament to critique it properly... and I was wondering why she hesitates to jump in here to prove her claim.
IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
The New Testament is said by some here to be a thing yours truly is too ignorant of to critique it.
I would like to begin with the statement that the Old Testament contains the New Testament concealed. And the New Testament contains the Old Testament revealed.
I dare say that more than starts the ball rolling here. Any comments?
IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
