Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 14:00:28 GMT
Why does Matthew explicitly say that Joseph begot Jesus?
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 22, 2019 14:02:36 GMT
I don't believe "mistranslation" is fair. Few translations are perfect, even contemporaneous ones across countries. In a pre-industrial world "slavery" was an entirely different thing. Of course we all know exactly what "virgin" means anywhere or anytime, but there was likely some confusion about the story. It did appear to some people that the birth of Jesus was somehow miraculous or there would be no story. It might also be the case that the birth of JC had to be miraculous, in an account worked to supposedly fulfill prophecies & etc - or there would be less of a story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 14:04:21 GMT
I thought it was pretty clear they were contracted to be married, but it wasn't official yet in terms of living together as husband and wife. Mary was still living in her parent's household. What was said that was contradictory? Sorry I didn't include this in my other post. Do you know of any translation where what Mary asked the angel regarding the how can this be where she was questioning for any other reason that she was never with a man? An older translation of Luke reads more that Joseph, and wife pregnant with child initially. She was already heavily pregnant. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 22, 2019 14:04:55 GMT
Why does Matthew explicitly say that Joseph begot Jesus? Inheritance laws can be complicated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 14:06:54 GMT
I don't believe "mistranslation" is fair. Few translations are perfect, even contemporaneous ones across countries. In a pre-industrial world "slavery" was an entirely different thing. Of course we all know exactly what "virgin" means anywhere or anytime, but there was likely some confusion about the story. It did appear to some people that the birth of Jesus was somehow miraculous or there would be no story. It might also be the case that the birth of JC had to be miraculous, supposedly worked to fulfill prophecies & etc - or there would be less of a story. It is a totally spurious link to a bit in Isiah, which was written about his time, not Jesus'... Besides that also says a young woman will give birth, not a virgin. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Sept 22, 2019 14:10:18 GMT
Sorry I didn't include this in my other post. Do you know of any translation where what Mary asked the angel regarding the how can this be where she was questioning for any other reason that she was never with a man? An older translation of Luke reads more that Joseph, and wife pregnant with child initially. She was already heavily pregnant. I'm not sure what you mean. Heavily pregnant when? When the angel announced?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 14:11:32 GMT
An older translation of Luke reads more that Joseph, and wife pregnant with child initially. She was already heavily pregnant. I'm not sure what you mean. Heavily pregnant when? When the angel announced? When they are first mentioned in the NT. They were already expecting. Matthew even says that Joseph begot Jesus. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Sept 22, 2019 14:11:48 GMT
It might also be the case that the birth of JC had to be miraculous, supposedly worked to fulfill prophecies & etc - or there would be less of a story. It is a totally spurious link to a bit in Isiah, which was written about his time, not Jesus'... Besides that also says a young woman will give birth, not a virgin. But I have no clue how young woman contradicts the virgin part.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 14:13:35 GMT
It is a totally spurious link to a bit in Isiah, which was written about his time, not Jesus'... Besides that also says a young woman will give birth, not a virgin. But I have no clue how young woman contradicts the virgin part. Because young woman and virgin are not synonymous. They knew the difference then, and we know the difference now. You can't infer one from the other. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Sept 22, 2019 14:17:31 GMT
But I have no clue how young woman contradicts the virgin part. Because young woman and virgin are not synonymous. They knew the difference then, and we know the difference now. You can't infer one from the other. You wouldn't need to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 14:19:08 GMT
Because young woman and virgin are not synonymous. They knew the difference then, and we know the difference now. You can't infer one from the other. You wouldn't need to. You do. They are not interchangeable. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Sept 22, 2019 14:19:36 GMT
I'm not sure what you mean. Heavily pregnant when? When the angel announced? When they are first mentioned in the NT. They were already expecting. Matthew even says that Joseph begot Jesus. No. It traces Joseph's lineage and calls him the husband of Mary. The language is different. In fact it speaks of Joseph being told if Mary conceiving through the Holy Spirit immediately afterwards.
|
|
|
|
Post by kls on Sept 22, 2019 14:21:35 GMT
You do. They are not interchangeable. How do you explain Mary's surprise? What else did she mean if she wasn't a virgin by saying she never knew a man?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 14:23:19 GMT
When they are first mentioned in the NT. They were already expecting. Matthew even says that Joseph begot Jesus. No. It traces Joseph's lineage and calls him the husband of Mary. The language is different. In fact it speaks of Joseph being told if Mary conceiving through the Holy Spirit immediately afterwards. It does now. It has been mistranslated or deliberately altered from the original. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 14:24:32 GMT
Why does Matthew explicitly say that Joseph begot Jesus? He doesn't say that. Earlier versions did. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Sept 22, 2019 14:24:37 GMT
No. It traces Joseph's lineage and calls him the husband of Mary. The language is different. In fact it speaks of Joseph being told if Mary conceiving through the Holy Spirit immediately afterwards. It does now. It has been mistranslated or deliberately altered from the original. How would you know that? Where does Mary's confusion how she could be pregnant come from? Is that also deliberately altered or mistranslated (along with the angel explaining to Joseph how Mary came to be with the Child)?
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 22, 2019 14:27:43 GMT
No. It traces Joseph's lineage and calls him the husband of Mary. The language is different. In fact it speaks of Joseph being told if Mary conceiving through the Holy Spirit immediately afterwards. It does now. It has been mistranslated or deliberately altered from the original. Lol. That's always the ultimate answer isn't it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 14:30:09 GMT
It does now. It has been mistranslated or deliberately altered from the original. Lol. That's always the ultimate answer isn't it? Only when we have earlier texts, and linguistic academics show there to be issues with modern interpretations. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 22, 2019 14:31:52 GMT
Lol. That's always the ultimate answer isn't it? Only when we have earlier texts, and linguistic academics show there to be issues with modern interpretations. Translations are not interpretations. So what you are saying is there are original writings which contradict the modern translation. So show them.
|
|
|
|
Post by llanwydd on Sept 22, 2019 14:42:54 GMT
Along the same lines as mistranslations is a phenomenon I have noticed in conversation about biblical trivia. A lot of seemingly intelligent Bible believers point to Methuselah as the oldest person who ever lived just because he is the oldest person mentioned in the Bible. I pointed this out to a Bible scholar once and his facial expression said "Eureka! There were other lines of descent from Adam." The thought had never occurred to him. In fact I heard Jesse Jackson point that out in a sermon I saw of his on television. And of course I had heard it as a child as well and never questioned it back then. To me that reveals a shocking level of shortsightedness in religion.
|
|
