Matthew 2 - They came bearing gifts

[Luce NDs]

"Assuming there is s Joseph."

A silly and unwarranted challenge, given that John twice identifies Jesus as "the son of Joseph" (1:45; 6:42), but never identifies Mary as Jesus' mother in his 3 references to Jesus' "mother" (2:3, 5; 19:26)! Does your church know you question whether Joseph was Jesus' father? The triple attestation of Joseph as Mary's husband in 3 Gospels offsets the fact that Mark refers to Mary as Jesus' mother once, but not to Joseph. Nor would we expect a reference to Joseph, since Joseph is apparently already deceased and Mark has no virgin birth narrative.


GordW: "All of which assumes some remembered history about the birth story at all."

My rebuttal is inspired by English scholar Richard Bauckham's excellent book, "Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church:"
Julius Africanus has ancient Jewish Christian sources that imply just such a "remembered history:

"From the Jewish villages of Nazareth and Kokhaba, they (Jesus' family members) traveled around the rest of the land and interpreted the genealogy they had [from family tradition]."

The reference to the obscure Galilean village "Kokhaba" just 16 kilometers from Nazareth lends credibility to this report.
Kokhaba was a main center of ancient Jewish Christianity (so Epiphanius, Pan. 29.7.7). Paul already attests the itinerant missionary work of Jesus' brothers:

"Do we not have a right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and THE BROTHERS OF THE LORD and Cephas (Peter) (1 Cor. 9:5)?"

We don't know which genealogy Jesus' brothers interpreted, but that is irrelevant because the main purpose of both the Matthean and Lucan genealogies is to establish Joseph (and therefore Jesus) as a descendent of David and hence as the promised Davidic Messiah. Of course, the genealogies go with the virgin birth narratives, which are also intended to establish Jesus as the Davidic Messiah born in Bethlehem, the city of David. This likely means that Jesus' brothers originally circulated virgin birth stories, which they would have heard from their mother, Mary.

The text of Matthew does not support prior residency in Galilee."

But that does not mean that Matthew is unaware of Joseph's prior residence in Nazareth. Remember, Matthew's agenda is to establish Joseph as a descendent from David to facilitate Jesus' status as the expected Davidic Messiah. So it does not serve Matthew's purpose to admit that Joseph was fleeing to Bethlehem, the city of David, from Nazareth to protect Mary from her perceived adultery scandal (see Mark 6:3). And of course, Matthew never denies that Joseph originally lived in Nazareth.

That may be a literal virtue to you ... but consider the effects of so many lies and delucions ... the squeeze is on ...

 

[jimkenney12]

By the time the gospels were being written, there seemed to be many stories about Jesus circulating in the Christian and non Christian communities. We cannot prove which ones were correct. Each person can decide what matters to them. I do not accept the Apostle's Creed and the birth status of Jesus dies not matter to me. All that matters to me is confidence he has been part of my life's journey and is still part of my life

 

[Mystic]

By the time the gospels were being written, there seemed to be many stories about Jesus circulating in the Christian and non Christian communities. We cannot prove which ones were correct.

No, but for that matter, we can't PROVE that Socrates or Alexander the Great existed, but most scholars accept the evidence that they did. And we have (sometimes fragmentary) writings from various first-century Jewish Christian groups and evidence from Paul that Jesus' brothers were itinerant missionaries.
So when first-century Jewish-Christian centers are mentioned in places that almost no one outside of Palestine knows about, it is reasonable to accept the factuality of this Jewish Christian testimony about the missionary focus of Jesus' relatives on Joseph's descent from David. In any case, it is just silly for you to demand PROOF!

Each person can decide what matters to them. I do not accept the Apostle's Creed and the birth status of Jesus dies not matter to me. All that matters to me is confidence he has been part of my life's journey and is still part of my life

So fictional movie characters have "been part of my life's journey" and are "still part of my life." But I don't believe these characters actually existed apart from the big screen. What warm fuzzies convince you that "he...is still part of my life?" LOL, where's your PROOF? You reject the Apostles' Creed. So why is it reasonable for you to believe Jesus is part of your life, when you reject His professed purpose for incarnating--to die an atoning death for our sins (e. g. Mark 10:45; Luke 13:31-33)? Is it rational for you to cherry-pick Gospel verses you like and reject or ignore the rest? I wonder what your parishioners would think of that arbitrary theology.

To me, you eloquently illustrate why educated young people are jumping out of church windows to leave UCCan. By contrast, my Canadian church started a ministry to the deaf after a deaf mute was healed through prayer. Now that's the kind of power that arouses the interest of modern young people. You seem to embody the critique in 2 Tim. 3:6 of professing Christians "having an outward form of godliness, but denying its POWER. Avoid them!"

And what is your response to my critique of your skepticism that Joseph existed?

 

[Luce NDs]

If Jesus was the light ... would that turn heads? Thus it became planted and rooted well so that many wouldn't be required to know ... a counter human effort leading to inhumanity withiin the dissociated ...

Many denied and thus remained backstage ... kind've in the dark! All part of the shadowing story ... obscure nebulae! Oblivious to all beneath what floats up there ... nemesus leads to the falls ... and maybe even higher Wah tha ... and still they never learned! Said to be against the powerful overhanded sort ...

Thus the 2 hands so slap back could be devised ... it may be just a sentient that came up ...

 

[jimkenney12]

No, but for that matter, we can't PROVE that Socrates or Alexander the Great existed, but most scholars accept the evidence that they did. And we have (sometimes fragmentary) writings from various first-century Jewish Christian groups and evidence from Paul that Jesus' brothers were itinerant missionaries.
So when first-century Jewish-Christian centers are mentioned in places that almost no one outside of Palestine knows about, it is reasonable to accept the factuality of this Jewish Christian testimony about the missionary focus of Jesus' relatives on Joseph's descent from David. In any case, it is just silly for you to demand PROOF!


So fictional movie characters have "been part of my life's journey" and are "still part of my life." But I don't believe these characters actually existed apart from the big screen. What warm fuzzies convince you that "he...is still part of my life?" LOL, where's your PROOF? You reject the Apostles' Creed. So why is it reasonable for you to believe Jesus is part of your life, when you reject His professed purpose for incarnating--to die an atoning death for our sins (e. g. Mark 10:45; Luke 13:31-33)? Is it rational for you to cherry-pick Gospel verses you like and reject or ignore the rest? I wonder what your parishioners would think of that arbitrary theology.

To me, you eloquently illustrate why educated young people are jumping out of church windows to leave UCCan. By contrast, my Canadian church started a ministry to the deaf after a deaf mute was healed through prayer. Now that's the kind of power that arouses the interest of modern young people. You seem to embody the critique in 2 Tim. 3:6 of professing Christians "having an outward form of godliness, but denying its POWER. Avoid them!"

And what is your response to my critique of your skepticism that Joseph existed?

I will respond in greater depth later. I believe Joseph probably existed. My faith is radically rooted in the experiences in which the gospels and letters are rooted along my personal mystical experiences. Each writer had an agenda based on their experiences, the stories in their communities, and what they believe needed to happen. For some writers, their experience included interactions with Jesus of Nazareth, interactions that convinced them he had a divine connection. For some, their experience involved The Risen Christ. For some, their experience was with their community.

Many of those experiences would have been difficult to put into words leading to extensive use of metaphor.

The amount of history in the words they wrote varied. What matters to me is the meaning they tried to share with their words. The role of Joseph was important to the authors of Luke and Matthew in their agendas as they worked at providing a form of external authority for Jesus. For people who had or have a direct experience of Christ, that external authority is not needed.

The Christian writings help frame guidelines for responding to that experience.

 

[Luce NDs]

If one bears gifts is that like a bourne identity getting stripped down? Rye in the field ... ripe for fermentation ...

The streak gets started as initiate ... reason to work towards the end of reason ... or just beginning? This goes round as a crank to those stiff in the meddling ... moving experience are strirring ... thus we travel according to the common swift ... Johnathan as aB oid?

 

[jimkenney12]

No, but for that matter, we can't PROVE that Socrates or Alexander the Great existed, but most scholars accept the evidence that they did. And we have (sometimes fragmentary) writings from various first-century Jewish Christian groups and evidence from Paul that Jesus' brothers were itinerant missionaries.
So when first-century Jewish-Christian centers are mentioned in places that almost no one outside of Palestine knows about, it is reasonable to accept the factuality of this Jewish Christian testimony about the missionary focus of Jesus' relatives on Joseph's descent from David. In any case, it is just silly for you to demand PROOF!


So fictional movie characters have "been part of my life's journey" and are "still part of my life." But I don't believe these characters actually existed apart from the big screen. What warm fuzzies convince you that "he...is still part of my life?" LOL, where's your PROOF? You reject the Apostles' Creed. So why is it reasonable for you to believe Jesus is part of your life, when you reject His professed purpose for incarnating--to die an atoning death for our sins (e. g. Mark 10:45; Luke 13:31-33)? Is it rational for you to cherry-pick Gospel verses you like and reject or ignore the rest? I wonder what your parishioners would think of that arbitrary theology.

To me, you eloquently illustrate why educated young people are jumping out of church windows to leave UCCan. By contrast, my Canadian church started a ministry to the deaf after a deaf mute was healed through prayer. Now that's the kind of power that arouses the interest of modern young people. You seem to embody the critique in 2 Tim. 3:6 of professing Christians "having an outward form of godliness, but denying its POWER. Avoid them!"

And what is your response to my critique of your skepticism that Joseph existed?

What am I supposed to prove? It is enough for me that Jesus focused on how we live and treat one another to reject a creed that is all about weird beliefs and demands nothing in terms of how we live. To me, the Apostle's Creed represents the arrogance of a group of bishops seeking the support of an emperor in creating a creed full of assumptions about God and Jesus.

 

[Luce NDs]

What am I supposed to prove? It is enough for me that Jesus focused on how we live and treat one another to reject a creed that is all about weird beliefs and demands nothing in terms of how we live. To me, the Apostle's Creed represents the arrogance of a group of bishops seeking the support of an emperor in creating a creed full of assumptions about God and Jesus.

It is an experience to observe in your mind when exposed to a flash (insight) ... a domain when some hard shells would never go for fear of what's there Toe Bae found in the dark ...

Do you know how many people disbelieve in the existence of an electic psyche ... here and then gone in a bolt? Why? Because of all the great powers that didn't wish the demos to be aware ... it is written in a grand tome about the tree of logic being cut down in an illogical scheme ... thus Illi*AD in his dreams ... quite an Od^st Zae if you look deeply into the pool of word ... tis dark ... inky even! Consider it utopian albeit the powers will go to dystopian ... just to upset the things they say can't reciprocate. Just you wait Mr. Igg ends ... once instigated the inductees become stirred ... after that much taken to calm the pool ... dead orknot! Entangled psychics and energy ... prime for conversion ... it mae go ether way ... frustrating Einstein on the quantum nature of relations when there is discourse of dominating positions in the knight ... nothing more than a horse's donkey ... just hanging ... by a thread?

Then there was the waeving, wobbling, warp and weft ... many omi gas ... celestial pharts? Do they smell? I really don't know if aph art is determinate regarding self sentient activity ... they may be prone to dissipation, or disemmanation in the winds of unknown ideas (given what we know as poorly determined).

The really determined, that they know, are baffled and buffaloed by someone raising uncertainty ... thus the need for admonition of the sin of believing the unknown when it is nebulous. Some old dodger skripted this ... artfully so you wouldn't know for sure ... but sho'nuff somebody had to stake a claim ... and there we were rodded and shafted ... about the loss of literature when people burn tomes ... and say cremation is bad for the body of Hoos ... thus we toast!

To all that we don't know except for the little bits in communion ... poly misinterpreted activity, not communicated well in the effort to ... well you know! If you read the complicated matter ...

 

[Mystic]

What am I supposed to prove?

It is you who dismissed historical evidence that refutes your position as unproven. That suggests you require proof and establishes the relevance of the inconsistent and totally arbitrary intellectual basis for your own position.

It is enough for me that Jesus focused on how we live and treat one another to reject a creed that is all about weird beliefs and demands nothing in terms of how we live. To me, the Apostle's Creed represents the arrogance of a group of bishops seeking the support of an emperor in creating a creed full of assumptions about God and Jesus.

LOL, the Apostolic Creed merely expresses the ancient ecclesial consensus about Jesus' christological credentials and is not intended to substitute for His Gospel teachings on how to live. Besides, you duck the key question of why that is enough for you. Why Jesus rather than any of the secular humanist ethical manifestos? Do you believe in His miracles atoning death (which He taught in Mark 10:45) and bodily resurrection?

 

[jimkenney12]

The concept of atonement makes God look like a pawnbroker. I have read many of the arguments for the concept of Jesus dying as a sacrifice for our sins and they all fail as far as I am concerned.

 

[Mystic]

The concept of atonement makes God look like a pawnbroker. I have read many of the arguments for the concept of Jesus dying as a sacrifice for our sins and they all fail as far as I am concerned.

So you reject Jesus' mission as He understands it?
"For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve AND TO GIVE HIS LIFE AS A RANSOM FOR MANY (Mark 10:45)." Ransom theology is based on Isaiah 53:5-6, 10 and explains both the meaning of Holy Communion and Jesus' many Passion predictions.

 

[Luce NDs]

Given the nature of essence and the density of lies told previously about initiates and beginnings ... we areall donkeys or mules of sort carrying things we know little about!

Yet the determined will support what is laid out to appease the urge for power ... avarice personified! Consider it a trial or prototype ... the mechanization doesn't know ... just a machine ... be still and observe ...

Strong Harp ist! Celtic Brew ... it'll cost you a Pense or your thoughts ... thus penny cost!

 

[jimkenney12]

I do not believe Jesus said many of the statements ascribed to him. I am in concurrence with the members of the Jesus Seminar on this issue.

 

[Mystic]

I do not believe Jesus said many of the statements ascribed to him. I am in concurrence with the members of the Jesus Seminar on this issue.

You ducked my question. I gather, though, that you reject multiple attestation as a well respected criterion for the authenticity of sayings of Jesus. Or are you just unaware that all four Gospels contain Jesus' Passion predictions? Have you even considered the possibility that Paul's atonement theology derives from Jesus' atonement theology, a theology that Paul was taught by the church of Antioch that discipled him and that was founded by missionaries from the Jerusalem church who were in contact with eyewitnesses of Jesus? Hmmm? So you feel free to invent a woke progressive Jesus, regardless of evidence from the Gospels and the early church? Does your church know about your beliefs on this matter?

 

[Redbaron]

He isn't ducking your questions as much as you are ducking his response.

 

[BetteTheRed]

@berserk, How do you deal with the social justice Jesus clearly described in the gospels? Last will be first, and all that, over and over and over again. My particular minister is totally social justice, chair of the interfaith Ontario social justice group known as ISARC.

If you could drop "woke progressive" from your vocabulary, it would probably go easier for you. I'm sure you get some mileage from this down there in Violenceville, but it's largely meaningless up here.

 

[Waterfall]

Have you even considered the possibility that Paul's atonement theology derives from Jesus' atonement theology, a theology that Paul was taught by the church of Antioch that discipled him and that was founded by missionaries from the Jerusalem church who were in contact with eyewitnesses of Jesus?

Have you considered that by claiming Paul's "blood atonement theory" the way you describe it, actually portrays a teaching that Paul was trying to stop the pagan gentiles from believing in?
Paul's God was a compassionate God, slow to anger, merciful, loving us all and forgiving sin (Exodus 34:6-7). No blood required!

 

[jimkenney12]

All four gospels and the book of Acts were written from 20 to 70 years after the death of Jesus by people used to using metaphors. They needed to put words into the mouth of Jesus that supported their leadership and agendas.

 

[Mystic]

He isn't ducking your questions as much as you are ducking his response.

You progressives can't even read what refutes your woke ideology. I asked Jim a direct question on whether he professes to follow Jesus, while at the same time rejecting Jesus' statement of His mission to suffer an atoning death (e. g. Mark 10:45). He ducked my question by vaguely responding that he rejects many of Jesus' sayings as inauthentic. Then I challenged him with 2 more questions:
(1) I asked him how he can reject multiple attestation as a well respected criterion of authenticity (i. e. Jesus' Passion predictions in all 4 Gospels) without being rightly accused of arbitrarily inventing a progressive Jesus to his woke liking.
(2) I asked him if he had the integrity to share all these skeptical beliefs with his congregation. Crickets!

 

[Redbaron]

Are you remotely familiar with the work of the Jesus Seminar? For example, have you read Robert Funks 'Honest to Jesus?' Or, to go back another generation, have you seen John A. T. Robinson's 'Honest to God?' They are eye-openers for anyone who takes the enterprise seriously.

By the way, 'multiple attestations' may be a result of the gospel writers using similar sources, such as Quelle.

Another thing, your flinging words like 'progressive' and 'woke' as alleged insults to those who dare to not share you opinion is getting as irritating as your use of the word 'ghetto' was. I would suggest you curtail the alleged insults, and try treating others like human beings.

And do take some time to look into Funk's works. You may learn something.