tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post1364994157813186213..comments2023-03-01T11:37:09.936-08:00Comments on Answering Judaism: Examination of some arguments raised by "Supplement to Contra Brown" 6Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-21610477178007958152014-03-08T02:42:16.790-08:002014-03-08T02:42:16.790-08:00One point here, your statement:
"FYI, here is...One point here, your statement:<br />"FYI, here is what the late Catholic theologian, Raymond E. Brown had to say about genealogical contradictions and the infancy narratives in the NT. Bear in mind his essays carry the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (official declarations by the Catholic Church that a book is "free of doctrinal or moral error")."<br /><br />The declaration by the Catholic Church is meaningless and doesn't mean a thing to me. I do not hold Rome as authoritative. Your appeal to the "Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur" hold NO weight against non-Catholics such as myself. It's just as meaningless as quoting RMBM to a Karaite Jew.<br /><br />For other points I need to gather some links together in a single page again, since I accidentally deleted the page.Answering Judaismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-47188100177638544372014-01-13T13:35:01.053-08:002014-01-13T13:35:01.053-08:00Just a couple of points. It is because you view th...Just a couple of points. It is because you view the NT as an accurate historical record, and the numerous mistranslations of the Hebrew Bible as also being accurate, that undermines your argument.<br /><br />Take Micah as one example. If you understood Hebrew you would know that the prophet is not addressing the town- he is addressing the clan or family of David's origins. Additionally the rest of the passage speaks about the Davidic ruler and what would happen at the time of his rule (including the ingathering). None of this happened during 1st century Judea.<br /><br />I will not go into the arguments of genealogy. It can easily be shown that Jesus is ruled out by this line of reasoning alone. <br /><br />FYI, here is what the late Catholic theologian, Raymond E. Brown had to say about genealogical contradictions and the infancy narratives in the NT. Bear in mind his essays carry the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (official declarations by the Catholic Church that a book is "free of doctrinal or moral error").<br /><br />"the lists of Jesus' ancestors that they [the Gospels] give are very different, and neither one is plausible." Brown takes the surprising position that "because the early Christians confessed Jesus as Messiah, for which 'Son of David' was an alternative title, they historicized their faith by creating for him Davidic genealogies and by claiming that Joseph was a Davidide." In another essay, also carrying the Church's Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, Brown expands upon this proposition:<br /><br /> Increasingly, the purported descent from David is explained as a theologoumenon, i.e., as the historicizing of what was originally a theological statement. If I many give a simplified explanation, the process of historicizing Davidic sonship is though to have gone somewhat in the following way: the Christian community believed that Jesus had fulfilled Israel's hopes; prominent among those hopes was the expectation of a Messiah, and so the traditional title "Messiah" was given to Jesus; but in Jewish thought the Messiah was pictures as having Davidic descent; consequently Jesus was described as "son of David"; and eventually a Davidic genealogy was fashioned for him.<br /><br />He encourages his readers to face the possibility that portions of Matthew and Luke "may represent non-historical dramatizations:"<br /><br /> Indeed, close analysis of the infancy narratives makes it unlikely that either account is completely historical. Matthew's account contains a number of extraordinary or miraculous public events that, were they factual, should have left some traces in Jewish records or elsewhere in the New Testament (the king and all Jerusalem upset over the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem; a star which moved from Jerusalem south to Bethlehem and came to rest over a house; the massacre of all the male children in Bethlehem). Luke's reference to a general census of the Empire under Augustus which affected Palestine before the death of Herod the Great is almost certainly wrong...<br /><br />Finally, I wish to point out that while there is evidence of a Jewish population in the region of Bethlehem from Iron Age pottery shards 1000-586 BCE and evidence of Christian populations during Byzantine and medieval periods 320-1450 CE, there is no archeological evidence of a Jewish presence in Bethlehem which dates to the Herodian period ie 37 BCE-70CE, ie the "time" of Jesus. <br /><br /><br /><br />umanskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264110752777618638noreply@blogger.com