09-08-2004, 06:28 AM
Hello Steve.
I don't wanna turn this into a big production since this was covered in great depth last year. The biggest problem I have with it is this:
In Numbers, chapter 1, verse 18, we're told that the Jewish people declare their pedigrees according to their fathers' houses. When Queen Athaliah wanted to eliminate the Royal Line of David, she only killed the males knowing full well that a female descendant of David couldn't pass on the right to the throne (II Kings 11; II Chronicles 22).
That is pretty much why that lineage of decendants could not rightfully contain Joseph as Mary's father while effectively booting Joseph the Husband out of it, because the title had to come through Joseph the husband, who just happen to be a son-of-David. Mary had the bloodline on one of of Solomon sides, agreed here, but Matthew, being the hebrew that he was, would never write a genealogy that would effectively annull Jesus's kingship by making it out to say it came through Mary. To be valid, it must come through Joseph the husband. On top of that, GOD had the say-so in it completely. GOD said The Messiah was gonna be brought through a virgin, and it was so. GOD told Mary that the baby was gonna recieve the Throne of David, and it was so. Did The Messiah have to be birthed from the bloodline of the father? No, because GOD chose the kings that were to be placed on the throne. Every single person that tried to make himself out as king without it being from GOD was pretty much killed shortly thereafter. The position was by divine appointment only. GOD chose how HE wanted it and who it was gonna be given to, and HE made it happen.
Here's where we ended:
I think that answers this Steve:
"Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, he would raise up the Messiah to sit on his throne."
Look up the passages and see if we were wrong.
There is a whole heap of assumption involved by saying that Mary's father was Joseph because that's what it is, an assumption. Luke's lineage covers what matthews doesn't but doesn't outright come out and say that Joseph was Mary's father. Disclamer, son of Heli, levrite marriage, etc, whatever, there is no outright explicit sentence that says Joseph was Mary's father unless you "assume" it here in Matthew. But by doing that you annull Jesus' kingship and dethrone Him.
People want to use that term "gowra" to make up for the lost name because they feel that the peshitta has to have the answer no matter what. I mean that folks, people will flat out refuse to accept that there might have been a mistake in this text,...I mean whatsoever, they refuse it completely.
All one has to do is look at the scribal mistakes that were found in the OT texts through the centuries. They were small for the most part, but they are there none the less. This showed up when they were able to compare the Dead Sea Scrolls with the OT texts, such as LXX and the Masoretic texts. No one knew it till these were found and compared. This was to be expected because of the human factor involved over many years and years of copying. Whoever threw that gowra word in there, did not know the missing king for the list, so him/her/they put that word in there to try and make up for the lost king that they didn't have in the copy they were using, and just like anything else, the missing king mistake passed on into the greek either from an aramaic source or that particular copy was used for the greek book also.
Sorry folks, Trimm makes complete sense here, way more sense than trying to say that Joseph was Mary's father and ridding Jesus of His rightful Kingship. Finally, someone found a text that had the missing name, and it just happened to be a hebrew text that no one wanted to look at. There are many early church fathers that said that his gospel was written in hebrew, not just "the hebrew language", but actual hebrew. Not just a few early church fathers, but quite a few! Rather than except the fact that someone may be doing GOD's will here, the peshitta crowd takes every opportunity to run him in the ground in their various books and reports.
The peshitta crowd refuses to accept this as a witness to the missing name because it throws the originality of the peshitta out the door,...and also what the eastern church fathers had to say about it. At least for this particular book.
Even if I find a quote like this from Aphraates:
People of the aramaic peshitta-only crowd will completely refuse to accept this as original or just flat out ignore it. Why? Because they have to, they can't have something be superior to it.
So yea, the genealogy segment is a brick wall. The "gowra" theory that was an unsure theory before and not completely agreeable between aramaic scholars on here, is now being promoted as the complete truth and answer to the missing name by a select few, only because they feel it promotes aramaic primacy. "Oh it doesn't matter if we de-throne Jesus, look fellas, we found the answer to the missing name!!!!!!"
yea right.
People like Lamsa never made or promoted this sort of distinction, but since he didn't, he has to be lieing or promoting his own agenda. Anything to hold up the peshitta whilst throwing complete caution to the wind. When did satanic confusion like this take hold? It could only happen to folks that are deficient in The Spirit of Truth. No Spirit-filled Christian would ever accept it as fact because The Holy Spirit would never agree to Jesus being anything less than King-of-Kings.
Thank The Lord! James Trimm did the work he did!! And just in time too with all this gowra crap being thrown around to divide GOD's people!! GOD is always on time!
Anyways, I'm done with my rant.
EDIT: Steve, here is one of the quotes from last year when we were going back and forth with this:
Craig had made a mistake in his sentence, he was pro-gowra, I put it in the parenthesis. His bias was for the peshitta not having any mistakes, so in a snap-shot we see how his reasoning automatically accepts the gowra theory wholeheartedly. He knows that the kingship would have to come through Joseph, but he is ready and willing to accept the "Joseph is father to Mary gowra theory" hook, line, and sinker. This is the common view and reasoning amongst the pro-peshitta crowd. I'm not attempting to start trouble, this is their reasoning, they will never accept that a mistake could possibly be in the peshitta. For the most part, their salvation is tied up in the scriptures. This is called "sola-scripture." If they don't have a particular language to adhere completely to, then they have no salvation. Even though we are to understand that our righteousness is not our own but given to us by Jesus's sacrifice, and the only way to receive and experience that gift is through faith.
But there ya go. Not everyone who calls Jesus "Lord" will receive the kingdom of GOD. He spelled it out for everyone.
That's about enough on this "genealogy" subject for me. I'm somewhat spent of this again as it is becoming a slight frustration on my part. Sometimes all you can do is just laugh and move on to other subjects that The Holy Spirit wants you to associate with. I just bring the petition to the throne.
I don't wanna turn this into a big production since this was covered in great depth last year. The biggest problem I have with it is this:
In Numbers, chapter 1, verse 18, we're told that the Jewish people declare their pedigrees according to their fathers' houses. When Queen Athaliah wanted to eliminate the Royal Line of David, she only killed the males knowing full well that a female descendant of David couldn't pass on the right to the throne (II Kings 11; II Chronicles 22).
That is pretty much why that lineage of decendants could not rightfully contain Joseph as Mary's father while effectively booting Joseph the Husband out of it, because the title had to come through Joseph the husband, who just happen to be a son-of-David. Mary had the bloodline on one of of Solomon sides, agreed here, but Matthew, being the hebrew that he was, would never write a genealogy that would effectively annull Jesus's kingship by making it out to say it came through Mary. To be valid, it must come through Joseph the husband. On top of that, GOD had the say-so in it completely. GOD said The Messiah was gonna be brought through a virgin, and it was so. GOD told Mary that the baby was gonna recieve the Throne of David, and it was so. Did The Messiah have to be birthed from the bloodline of the father? No, because GOD chose the kings that were to be placed on the throne. Every single person that tried to make himself out as king without it being from GOD was pretty much killed shortly thereafter. The position was by divine appointment only. GOD chose how HE wanted it and who it was gonna be given to, and HE made it happen.
Here's where we ended:
Quote:drmlanc wrote:
How can the two lines converge in Selathiel and Zerubabel and then seperate again???
Since, we know who the father of Shilathi'el was, and it was NOT "Neri", we know that the "Neri" of Luqa must be either be the mother of Shilathi'el or the father of the mother of Shilathi'el, thus both lines reunite in the personages of Shilathi'el and Zerubabel, and then one of the younger sons of Zerubabel goes on to found the line that is recorded in Mattai (or perhaps Luqa, but obviously I think it was Mattai).
Shlama, Craig
Quote: Dave wrote:
does this help?
Who was Shealtiel's father?
If his mother had no brothers, then under the Mosaic law he could be reckoned under the mother's line. Meaning that he could be called the "descendant of" his grandfather on his mother's side.
Yes, that would be the best explanation.
Shlama, Craig
I think that answers this Steve:
"Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, he would raise up the Messiah to sit on his throne."
Quote:drmlanc wrote:
Okay, so perhaps Mary and Joseph shared lineages through Zerubabel. But, who was the rightful king? Joseph, or "Mary"?
Yosip. If he was not, then why bother to record a genealogy for him at all?
Shlama, Craig
Look up the passages and see if we were wrong.
There is a whole heap of assumption involved by saying that Mary's father was Joseph because that's what it is, an assumption. Luke's lineage covers what matthews doesn't but doesn't outright come out and say that Joseph was Mary's father. Disclamer, son of Heli, levrite marriage, etc, whatever, there is no outright explicit sentence that says Joseph was Mary's father unless you "assume" it here in Matthew. But by doing that you annull Jesus' kingship and dethrone Him.
People want to use that term "gowra" to make up for the lost name because they feel that the peshitta has to have the answer no matter what. I mean that folks, people will flat out refuse to accept that there might have been a mistake in this text,...I mean whatsoever, they refuse it completely.
All one has to do is look at the scribal mistakes that were found in the OT texts through the centuries. They were small for the most part, but they are there none the less. This showed up when they were able to compare the Dead Sea Scrolls with the OT texts, such as LXX and the Masoretic texts. No one knew it till these were found and compared. This was to be expected because of the human factor involved over many years and years of copying. Whoever threw that gowra word in there, did not know the missing king for the list, so him/her/they put that word in there to try and make up for the lost king that they didn't have in the copy they were using, and just like anything else, the missing king mistake passed on into the greek either from an aramaic source or that particular copy was used for the greek book also.
Sorry folks, Trimm makes complete sense here, way more sense than trying to say that Joseph was Mary's father and ridding Jesus of His rightful Kingship. Finally, someone found a text that had the missing name, and it just happened to be a hebrew text that no one wanted to look at. There are many early church fathers that said that his gospel was written in hebrew, not just "the hebrew language", but actual hebrew. Not just a few early church fathers, but quite a few! Rather than except the fact that someone may be doing GOD's will here, the peshitta crowd takes every opportunity to run him in the ground in their various books and reports.
The peshitta crowd refuses to accept this as a witness to the missing name because it throws the originality of the peshitta out the door,...and also what the eastern church fathers had to say about it. At least for this particular book.
Even if I find a quote like this from Aphraates:
Quote:and Jacob begat Joseph, and Joseph was called father to Jesus The Messiah
People of the aramaic peshitta-only crowd will completely refuse to accept this as original or just flat out ignore it. Why? Because they have to, they can't have something be superior to it.
So yea, the genealogy segment is a brick wall. The "gowra" theory that was an unsure theory before and not completely agreeable between aramaic scholars on here, is now being promoted as the complete truth and answer to the missing name by a select few, only because they feel it promotes aramaic primacy. "Oh it doesn't matter if we de-throne Jesus, look fellas, we found the answer to the missing name!!!!!!"
yea right.
People like Lamsa never made or promoted this sort of distinction, but since he didn't, he has to be lieing or promoting his own agenda. Anything to hold up the peshitta whilst throwing complete caution to the wind. When did satanic confusion like this take hold? It could only happen to folks that are deficient in The Spirit of Truth. No Spirit-filled Christian would ever accept it as fact because The Holy Spirit would never agree to Jesus being anything less than King-of-Kings.
Thank The Lord! James Trimm did the work he did!! And just in time too with all this gowra crap being thrown around to divide GOD's people!! GOD is always on time!
Anyways, I'm done with my rant.
EDIT: Steve, here is one of the quotes from last year when we were going back and forth with this:
Quote:Okay, so perhaps Mary and Joseph shared lineages through Zerubabel. But, who was the rightful king? Joseph, or "Mary"?
Yosip. If he was not, then why bother to record a genealogy for him at all?
Shlama, Craig
Quote:Finally, why I'm convinced the genealogy in Mattai HAS to be that of Maryam NOT Yosip. Mattai says there are 14 generations "from the captivity of Babel until Meshikha, fourteen generations." If the genealogy is (not) that of Maryam we only have 13 generations
Craig had made a mistake in his sentence, he was pro-gowra, I put it in the parenthesis. His bias was for the peshitta not having any mistakes, so in a snap-shot we see how his reasoning automatically accepts the gowra theory wholeheartedly. He knows that the kingship would have to come through Joseph, but he is ready and willing to accept the "Joseph is father to Mary gowra theory" hook, line, and sinker. This is the common view and reasoning amongst the pro-peshitta crowd. I'm not attempting to start trouble, this is their reasoning, they will never accept that a mistake could possibly be in the peshitta. For the most part, their salvation is tied up in the scriptures. This is called "sola-scripture." If they don't have a particular language to adhere completely to, then they have no salvation. Even though we are to understand that our righteousness is not our own but given to us by Jesus's sacrifice, and the only way to receive and experience that gift is through faith.
But there ya go. Not everyone who calls Jesus "Lord" will receive the kingdom of GOD. He spelled it out for everyone.
That's about enough on this "genealogy" subject for me. I'm somewhat spent of this again as it is becoming a slight frustration on my part. Sometimes all you can do is just laugh and move on to other subjects that The Holy Spirit wants you to associate with. I just bring the petition to the throne.