A useless genealogy

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

HI Rick,


>Ray

>You are wrong about Helms reverend. Helms is simply giving a

>reason why

>Matthew made up the story. He is most definitely not trying to

>"save the

>day". Randal Helms wrote the book Gospel Fictions and is most

>definitely

>not a believer.

>

>RevGaud

>OK, here is what Helms says:

>"Fourteen equals two 'weeks' of generations, and three two week

>periods (14 +14+14) equal six 'weeks' of pre-Christian

>generations in the royal line of Israel; thus, with Jesus begins

>the seventh, the 'sabbath' week of Jewish monarchical

>history--the kingdom, RESTORED UNDER CHIRST (emphasis mine).

>Matthew included a genealogy not because he was really interested

>in the ancestry of Jesus--presumably he had the wits to grasp the

>pointlessness of tracing the genealogy of Joseph, who his own

>narrative denies is Jesus' father--but because he was interested

>in the pattern, the PROPHETIC FULFILLMENT" (emphasis mine).

>

>Even if I grant that Helms is right about Matthew's intentions,

>it would still not make the genealogy useful since Jesus isn't

>Messiah. Helms' theroy rests on Matthew's believing Jesus was

>Messiah. But Matthew was wrong about that, Jesus isn't Messiah,

>so doesn't that make the genealogy of no use? The assumption his

>theory is based on is false, IMHO. The so-called prophetic

>fulfillment doesn't exist.

>

>Now Ray, I'm willing to admit I'm wrong, even apologize to Joe,

>but I just can't see where I am. I'm not trying to be

>hard-headed: I just don't see it. Perhaps you could explain it

>some other way, then I might understand what you're saying.

>

>

LIVINGSTON
	The point that Helms (and Alward) are trying to get across was that
Matthew wrote the genealogy for a theological reason rather than a
historical one.  We are all agreed that historically, the genealogy is
inaccurate, in fact, Matthew himself might even have agreed with us!  
	What Helms was trying to do was show why Matthew included the genealogy
in the first place.  The premise of his book was that the gospel writers
knowingly wrote fiction in some parts of their books.  In other words,
they were not trying to be historical, but using stories and symbols to
illustrate a theological belief that they held (a theologoumenon).  The
Matthean genealogy was an example of this, Matthew altering the O.T.
genealogy of the royal line and making up names afterward, to create a
pattern that would result in Jesus fulfilling prophecy.  
	Now, of course just because Matthew believes something is fulfilled
prophecy doesn't make it so, and Helms (and Alward, I dare say) no more
believes that this is fulfilled prophecy than you do.  
	The main point relating to inerrancy is that if Helms thesis is correct,
not only is the genealogy false, the original writers were not trying to
be "truthful" in a historical sense anyway.  This would frost the
literalists of the world.  That would mean that the whole inerrantist
approach to the Bible is inaccurate.  Not only would there possibly be a
few errors sprinkled throughout the text, but even where it is
consistent, you would not know whether it was something that actually
happened or just a cute story.

Sincerely,
Josh Livingston

	"Sleeping is no mean art: for its sake one must stay awake all day."
			-Friedrich Nietzsche-
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

• Previous message: A useless genealogy
• Next message: A useless genealogy
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]