Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[daqq]

A Christian scholar that also studied the Talmud, named John Lightfoot, wrote the following commentary sometime around 1660:

Luke 3

23. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

[Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.] "A parable. There was a certain orphaness brought up by a certain epitropus, or foster-father, an honest good man. At length he would place her in marriage. A scribe is called to write a bill of her dower: saith he to the girl, 'What is thy name?' 'N.' saith she. 'What the name of thy father?' She held her peace. To whom her foster-father, 'Why dost thou not speak?' 'Because,' saith she, 'I know no other father but thee.' He that educateth the child is called a father, not he that begets it." Note that: Joseph, having been taught by the angel, and well satisfied in Mary, whom he had espoused, had owned Jesus for his son from his first birth; he had redeemed him as his first-born, had cherished him in his childhood, educated him in his youth: and therefore, no wonder if Joseph be called his father, and he was supposed to be his son.

II. Let us consider what might have been the judgment of the Sanhedrim in this case only from this story: "There came a certain woman to Jerusalem with a child, brought thither upon shoulders. She brought this child up; and he afterward had the carnal knowledge of her. They are brought before the Sanhedrim, and the Sanhedrim judged them to be stoned to death: not because he was undoubtedly her son, but because he had wholly adhered to her."

Now suppose we that the blessed Jesus had come to the Sanhedrim upon the decease of Joseph, requiring his stock and goods as his heir; had he not, in all equity, obtained them as his son? Not that he was, beyond all doubt and question, his son, but that he had adhered to him wholly from his cradle, was brought up by him as his son, and always so acknowledged.

III. The doctors speak of one Joseph a carpenter: "Abnimus Gardieus asked the Rabbins of blessed memory, whence the earth was first created: they answer him, 'There is no one skilled in these matters; but go thou to Joseph the architect.' He went, and found him standing upon the rafters."

It is equally obscure, who this Joseph the carpenter, and who this Abnimus was; although, as to this last, he is very frequently mentioned in those authors. They say, that "Abnimus and Balaam were two the greatest philosophers in the whole world." Only this we read of him, That there was a very great familiarity betwixt him and R. Meir.

[Which was the son of Heli.] I. There is neither need nor reason, nor indeed any foundation at all, for us to frame I know not what marriages, and the taking of brothers' wives, to remove a scruple in this place, wherein there is really no scruple in the least. For,

1. Joseph is not here called the son of Heli, but Jesus is so: for the word Jesus must be understood, and must be always added in the reader's mind to every race in this genealogy, after this manner: "Jesus (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, and so the son of Heli, and of Matthat, yea and, at length, the son of Adam, and the Son of God." For it was very little the business of the evangelist either to draw Joseph's pedigree from Adam, or, indeed, to shew that Adam was the son of God: which not only sounds something harshly, but in this place very enormously, I may almost add, blasphemously too. For when St. Luke, verse 22, had made a voice from heaven, declaring that Jesus was the Son of God, do we think the same evangelist would, in the same breath, pronounce Adam 'the son of God' too? So that this very thing teacheth us what the evangelist propounded to himself in the framing of this genealogy; which was to shew that this Jesus, who had newly received that great testimony from heaven, "This is my Son," was the very same that had been promised to Adam by the seed of the woman. And for this reason hath he drawn his pedigree on the mother's side, who was the daughter of Heli, and this too as high as Adam, to whom this Jesus was promised. In the close of the genealogy, he teacheth in what sense the former part of it should be taken; viz. that Jesus, not Joseph, should be called the son of Heli, and consequently, that the same Jesus, not Adam, should be called the Son of God. Indeed, in every link of this chain this still should be understood, "Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi"; and so of the rest...

2. Suppose it could be granted that Joseph might be called the son of Heli (which yet ought not to be), yet would not this be any great solecism, that his son-in-law should become the husband of Mary, his own daughter. He was but his son by law, by the marriage of Joseph's mother, not by nature and generation.

There is a discourse of a certain person who in his sleep saw the punishment of the damned. Amongst the rest which I would render thus, but shall willingly stand corrected if under a mistake; He saw Mary the daughter of Heli amongst the shades. R. Lazar Ben Josah saith, that she hung by the glandules of her breasts. R. Josah Bar Haninah saith, that the great bar of hell's gate hung at her ear.

If this be the true rendering of the words, which I have reason to believe it is, then thus far, at least, it agrees with our evangelist, that Mary was the daughter of Heli: and questionless all the rest is added in reproach of the blessed Virgin, the mother of our Lord: whom they often vilify elsewhere under the name of Sardah.​

Using the Talmud to refute the writings now? Try reading Apocalypse Yaakob, (aka "the Protoevangelium of James"), in that text Mariam is the daughter of Yoakim and Hannah. But of course you will not accept that as evidence will you? even though you will use the Talmud against the Bible. :chuckle:

 

[Lon]

PS: What quote did cobra clip to misrepresent you? (Just curious, and you can consider it rhetorical if you wish.)

It was regarding the proper use of worship vs idolatry. To Cobra I'd said, "You think I worship the Bible and I do."
Knowing His mind and accusation, I should have continued "I value them as coming from Him!"
In the ensuing posts I said as much to make it clear, but he would rather use words to his own ends rather than represent a fellow accurately.
It is an unscrupulous debate tactic.

PPS: Yes, I see you're one of the ones to go zonkers.

Over-analytical? If that is what you mean, yes. True. I think it is what set apart the Bereans and 'why' they were more noble, so yes, I try.
Something else? Sure, there are some things I don't do halfway. Being a little over-the-top? You've seen a bit of that in your welcome thread.
Meanly? No and I try to reel it in. That said, I come to other's defense at times and yes, strongly.

PPPS: And with regards to your moniker, aren't you missing an "R" ?

You mean View attachment 26097???

 

[genuineoriginal]

You're still removing the verse. Address the verse in whatever version you want.

THE VERSE. The verse you refuse to address in any translation you choose.

The punctuation is messed up in the verse you keep quoting.
Here is a better division of the two verses into the thoughts they represent:

Psalm 12:6-7 6a The words of the Lord are pure words. 6b-7 As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times, thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.​

This division is supported by other scriptures:

Psalm 119:140 140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.​

Proverbs 30:5 5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.​

Zechariah 13:9 9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God.​

Malachi 3:3 3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.​

 

[daqq]

LUKE 3:23 BEZAE [D]
ΗΝ ΔΕ Ι̅ΗϹ ΩϹ ΕΤΩΝ ·Λ·
ΑΡΧΟΜΕΝΟϹ ΩϹ ΕΝΟΜΕΙΖΕ ΤΟ ΕΙΝΑΙ
ΥΙΟϹ ———— ΙΩϹΗΦ
http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/371

ην δε Ι̅Η ως ετων ·λ· αρχομενος ως ενομειζε το ειναι υιος ιωσηφ

Luke 3:23-27b — Moreover Ι̅Η was commencing about thirty years, as done by law being a son of Yoseph,^{(Gen 41:46, Psa 81:3,4,5,6)} of Heli-my-El, a gift of Yaho, of Levi of Melki-my-King, the flourishing one of Yoseph, a present of Yaho, a burden of comfort, preserved of Yaho, illuminating the small, a gift of Yaho: hear my report of Yoseph of Yhudah, of the grace of Elohim, of the head of Zerubbabel

By the way, (with the one exception of James 1:18), "το ειναι" is a construction peculiar to Luke and Paul: and if you look at the manuscript in the link provided that is indeed what is there, (even though apparently they were not willing to put it in the transcript, lol).

 

[genuineoriginal]

Using the Talmud to refute the writings now? Try reading Apocalypse Yaakob, (aka "the Protoevangelium of James"), in that text Mariam is the daughter of Yoakim and Hannah. But of course you will not accept that as evidence will you? even though you will use the Talmud against the Bible. :chuckle:

John Lightfoot was a very devout Christian scholar.
He did not use the Talmud to "refute" the Bible.
I provided the quote from John Lightfoot to show that Heli being Mary's father in the genealogy of Jesus in Luke is an old idea, not a new one.

 

[daqq]

John Lightfoot was a very devout Christian scholar.
He did not use the Talmud to "refute" the Bible.
I provided the quote from John Lightfoot to show that Heli being Mary's father in the genealogy of Jesus in Luke is an old idea, not a new one.

All that is, as may be plainly seen by your quote, is a scramble and two-step shuffle to come up with a way to subvert the Lukan text. There is nothing about father-in-law in the text. The Word is designed to force you into decisions where you must surrender your own will and submit to the Word: and if you do not fall upon that Stone then that same Stone will fall upon you and grind you into powder, (like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors, lol).

 

[2003cobra]

You use that word a LOT :think:

No, but it is curious your mind works this way. You are really a man of presuppositions that cannot be challenged or changed.

And yet you can’t decide whether the centurion came to Jesus and spoke to Jesus, or did neither.

And yet you can’t decide whether there were 14 or 18 generations from David to the deportation.

And yet you did decide that Jesus old the two disciples to bring one animal, not two, implicitly declaring Matthew to have written errors.

On the contrary, I am not the one with presuppositions. You presumed inerrancy and must deny the facts and the scriptures as a result.

 

[2003cobra]

It was regarding the proper use of worship vs idolatry. To Cobra I'd said, "You think I worship the Bible and I do."
Knowing His mind and accusation, I should have continued "I value them as coming from Him!"
In the ensuing posts I said as much to make it clear, but he would rather use words to his own ends rather than represent a fellow accurately.
It is an unscrupulous debate tactic.


Over-analytical? If that is what you mean, yes. True. I think it is what set apart the Bereans and 'why' they were more noble, so yes, I try.
Something else? Sure, there are some things I don't do halfway. Being a little over-the-top? You've seen a bit of that in your welcome thread.
Meanly? No and I try to reel it in. That said, I come to other's defense at times and yes, strongly.



You mean View attachment 26097???

I find the statement that you worship the Bible, no matter what the caveats, so incredibly inappropriate that to say I was taken aback is a gross understatement.

I do appreciate your saying it, because it may help you overcome your problem with accepting the gospel despite the fact that God never promised and never gave us a perfect Bible.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

All that is, as may be plainly seen by your quote, is a scramble and two-step shuffle to come up with a way to subvert the Lukan text. There is nothing about father-in-law in the text. The Word is designed to force you into decisions where you must surrender your own will and submit to the Word: and if you do not fall upon that Stone then that same Stone will fall upon you and grind you into powder, (like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors, lol).

The guy who wrote that said the same thing.

Slow down a little there hot rod.atrol:

2. Suppose it could be granted that Joseph might be called the son of Heli (which yet ought not to be), yet would not this be any great solecism, that his son-in-law should become the husband of Mary, his own daughter. He was but his son by law, by the marriage of Joseph's mother, not by nature and generation.

 

[2003cobra]

John Lightfoot was a very devout Christian scholar.
He did not use the Talmud to "refute" the Bible.
I provided the quote from John Lightfoot to show that Heli being Mary's father in the genealogy of Jesus in Luke is an old idea, not a new one.

Yes, people have been denying the text to try to reconcile errors for quite a while.

 

[genuineoriginal]

All that is, as may be plainly seen by your quote, is a scramble and two-step shuffle to come up with a way to subvert the Lukan text. There is nothing about father-in-law in the text.

Yes, people have been denying the text to try to reconcile errors for quite a while.

Almost every English translation has added words to the text that have changed the meaning to make it more understandable to English readers, but loses the accuracy of the Greek.

Luke 3:23-24 YLT 23 And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph, 24 the [son] of Eli, the [son] of Matthat, the [son] of Levi, the [son] of Melchi, the [son] of Janna, the [son] of Joseph,​

The genealogy is traced through Eli, Matthat, Levi, etc., but not necessarily through a male offspring of Eli.
The discrepancy between Luke's genealogy and Matthew's genealogy is reconciled for some people by having Eli as Mary's father instead of Joseph's father, which in no way contradicts the text.

 

[glorydaz]

The punctuation is messed up in the verse you keep quoting.
Here is a better division of the two verses into the thoughts they represent:

Psalm 12:6-7 6a The words of the Lord are pure words. 6b-7 As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times, thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.​

This division is supported by other scriptures:

Psalm 119:140 140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.​

Proverbs 30:5 5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.​

Zechariah 13:9 9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God.​

Malachi 3:3 3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.​

Tell ya what. You just work on fixing God's word until it's to your liking. I have no problem understanding what it says quite clearly....in any translation. The fact is that it's God's word that is kept from generation to generation. It is God's word that is enduring, and that simple fact is supported all throughout scripture.

 

[glorydaz]

You use that word a LOT :think:

No, but it is curious your mind works this way. You are really a man of presuppositions that cannot be challenged or changed.

Sonnet. :chuckle:

 

[Lon]

And yet you can’t decide whether the centurion came to Jesus and spoke to Jesus, or did neither.

And yet you can’t decide whether there were 14 or 18 generations from David to the deportation.

And yet you did decide that Jesus old the two disciples to bring one animal, not two, implicitly declaring Matthew to have written errors.

On the contrary, I am not the one with presuppositions. You presumed inerrancy and must deny the facts and the scriptures as a result.

:nono: "My" thoughts are more complex than these. It is simply your quick and dirty caricatures. AGAIN, YOU are stuck in presupposition as well as formulas and patterns that don't change from forum to forum. You have a 'veneer' of dialogue, not real dialogue. A veneer of concern, no real concern, etc. IOW, your reasoning, concern, restatements are all shallow and routine from a file cabinet rather than current thinking. I realize this all points back to 'simpleton' which you hate, but TRY and catch common threads of response in replies to you. I'm not the first person who has said similar in even this thread. You are getting pretty much that feedback from everyone you encounter on TOL. THINK about it some more? It is reason to pause and take a self-assessment. -Lon

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Tell ya what. You just work on fixing God's word until it's to your liking. I have no problem understanding what it says quite clearly....in any translation. The fact is that it's God's word that is kept from generation to generation. It is God's word that is enduring, and that simple fact is supported all throughout scripture.

Generations?........:chuckle:

 

[daqq]

The guy who wrote that said the same thing.

Slow down a little there hot rod.atrol:

2. Suppose it could be granted that Joseph might be called the son of Heli (which yet ought not to be), yet would not this be any great solecism, that his son-in-law should become the husband of Mary, his own daughter. He was but his son by law, by the marriage of Joseph's mother, not by nature and generation.

Did you read the entire quote? He is indeed saying that Joseph was not the son of Heli and instead that the Master was. He is taking the whole passage from Heli to Adam and treating it as one great big ellipsis, (inserting Jesus before every person in the list of names). And that he does because he cannot fathom Luke calling Adam the son of Elohim. But that also is precisely what Luke does, (and the Son of Elohim proclaims that he is both the Protos and the Eschatos). He is making things up to avoid two primary things: to avoid admitting that Luke calls Adam the son of Elohim, and attempting to avoid the problem in the discussion at hand. Moreover what you highlighted says that it (ought not to be) that Joseph might be called the son of Heli, (worded in a more understandable way but saying the same which he says), which is the opposite of what is written in Luke. Here is what he is essentially saying:

Originally Posted by genuineoriginal

<snip>

1. Joseph is not here called the son of Heli, but Jesus is so: for the word Jesus must be understood, and must be always added in the reader's mind to every race in this genealogy, after this manner: "Jesus (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, and so the son of Heli, and of Matthat, yea and, at length, the son of Adam, and the Son of God." For it was very little the business of the evangelist either to draw Joseph's pedigree from Adam, or, indeed, to shew that Adam was the son of God: which not only sounds something harshly, but in this place very enormously, I may almost add, blasphemously too. For when St. Luke, verse 22, had made a voice from heaven, declaring that Jesus was the Son of God, do we think the same evangelist would, in the same breath, pronounce Adam 'the son of God' too? So that this very thing teacheth us what the evangelist propounded to himself in the framing of this genealogy; which was to shew that this Jesus, who had newly received that great testimony from heaven, "This is my Son," was the very same that had been promised to Adam by the seed of the woman. And for this reason hath he drawn his pedigree on the mother's side, who was the daughter of Heli, and this too as high as Adam, to whom this Jesus was promised. In the close of the genealogy, he teacheth in what sense the former part of it should be taken; viz. that Jesus, not Joseph, should be called the son of Heli, and consequently, that the same Jesus, not Adam, should be called the Son of God. Indeed, in every link of this chain this still should be understood, "Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi"; and so of the rest...

He says that to read the text the way it is written is blasphemous because he had no clue who is the First and Last Adam. :chuckle:

 

[Lon]

I find the statement that you worship the Bible, no matter what the caveats, so incredibly inappropriate that to say I was taken aback is a gross overstatement.

Exactly. You ONLY care what it means to you and could care less about anything BUT that. You are egocentric. Someone TRYING to understand another wouldn't be unscrupulous. YOUR shortcoming. Your incredulity is your own expectation and "it doesn't matter whether you got it right or wrong, it was what you were looking for.

I do appreciate your saying it, because it may help you overcome your problem with accepting the gospel despite the fact that God never promised and never gave us a perfect Bible.

Based off of a half-truth? You are a weird fellow. Do you understand 'why' John W calls you a child of the devil? :think:

We shouldn't follow Satan's tactics, even if they worked against a perfect people (so they ARE effective, but produce damage and harm). The ends do not justify the means. If you have to deploy trickery, parlor tricks, slights of hand, or half truths, then you MIGHT want to rethink what you thought you knew. Truth stands all by itself. It doesn't need questionable (to say the least) debate tactics. That you don't think these debate employments of yours are questionable and worse? That's really the question isn't it? :think: Think a little longer why John W thinks you are a child of the devil. It is worth a second glance. You shouldn't use sophistry to try to bend another's will to your own. -Lon

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Just had to.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Tell ya what. You just work on fixing God's word until it's to your liking.

I am not fixing God's word, I am fixing an error in translating the scriptures.

I have no problem understanding what it says quite clearly....in any translation. The fact is that it's God's word that is kept from generation to generation.

What you believe is a fact is in fact not true.

It is God's word that is enduring, and that simple fact is supported all throughout scripture.

God's Word enduring is a much different thing than God preserving the "words" of the KJV Bible.

 

[glorydaz]

Generations?........:chuckle:

Yep, ya want some samples?

Psalm 119:89 For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven. 90 Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.

1 Chronicles 16:15 Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;

Psalm 33:11 The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.​