Luke 23 - Genealogy of Jesus

[seanD]

No need to recap.

but it will have to wait until I have more time to read back through my posts.

When a person continues to misrepresent someone, which you keep insisting, their misrepresentation would be plain to them. It wouldn't be necessary for them to have to go back and re-read where they were misrepresented. This right here speaks volumes to me.

[robrecht]

No need to recap.



When a person continues to misrepresent someone, which you keep insisting, their misrepresentation would be plain to them. It wouldn't be necessary for them to have to go back and re-read where they were misrepresented. This right here speaks volumes to me.

No, if you are speaking of me and not you, it merely reflects my desire to be thorough and to provide you with sufficient detail such that you would, one hopes, no longer deny what should already be obvious to you. It's very difficult to quote from multiple posts while posting from my phone during the day. I would have to do this from one of my laptops at home.

[seanD]

I don’t believe I’m misrepresenting you after I cleared it up in my last post. Typically, when someone is misrepresented they clarify where and how this occurred. Maybe you should specifically explain where and how I continue to misrepresent you. Until then, I’ll just look at it as a red herring you keep throwing around just to discredit my position because of how weak your position is. This seems to be the case, because it appears your argument is becoming somewhat hostile, accusatory and peppered with subtle ad hom.

You have to assess Luke’s intent of his work within a historical framework. I’m surprised you’re missing this since you seem to have a knack of bragging about your scholarly connections and throwing your education weight around. According to Roman law, when two couples were not married, they recognized the nationality of the child via the mother. Since Luke dismissed Joseph as the supposed father, his Gentile readers would have naturally assumed he was describing the mother’s lineage. If we assume he was describing Joseph, then he was not only giving them the impression Jesus was illegitimate but, once again, leaving them in a conundrum to figure out how Jesus was a Jew and how he was the Son of David. Matthew's readers, on the other hand, who were Jewish, understood the intricacies of adoption.

I don’t feel there was any “nuanced” in how Luke used nomizo. Each time he used it, it meant something that was supposed but wasn’t true. So there's no reason to assume this doesn't apply here.

Just to clarify this; I meant one couple. I have a tendency to make redundancy word errors in my haste to type my point.