Comments on: Apologetics Down Under http://www.truthtalklive.com/2009/09/18/apologetics-down-under/ Today’s Issues, From a Biblical Perspective! Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:39:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Ben Maulis http://www.truthtalklive.com/2009/09/18/apologetics-down-under/comment-page-1/#comment-27860 Ben Maulis Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:12:30 +0000 http://www.truthtalklive.com/?p=3147#comment-27860 The website replaced the Greek characters with ????. In Mark 6:3, the word is tektwv and in Matthew 13:55, it is tektovoc -- or that's the best I can do with English characters anyway. The website replaced the Greek characters with ????. In Mark 6:3, the word is tektwv and in Matthew 13:55, it is tektovoc — or that’s the best I can do with English characters anyway.

]]> By: Ben Maulis http://www.truthtalklive.com/2009/09/18/apologetics-down-under/comment-page-1/#comment-27859 Ben Maulis Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:07:50 +0000 http://www.truthtalklive.com/?p=3147#comment-27859 I think you're right. I was only looking at the root forms of the words in Greek. In fact Mark 6:3 has ?????? rather than the ???????? of Matthew 13:55. Even were the difference not so distinct in the manuscripts, I would not argue the point. I also agree with you that there is no problem with Jesus being a carpenter. If he were, that would be fine with me and I do not look down upon a man who does any honest work. However, considering the source of the information, I refuse to accept whatever they say as truth. I believe Matthew and Mark, but they did not write to us that Jesus was a carpenter. They wrote that the ones who scoffed at Jesus said, "Is this not the carpenter?" The rhetorical question of those who scoffed at Jesus is not a reliable source of truth. I think you’re right. I was only looking at the root forms of the words in Greek. In fact Mark 6:3 has ?????? rather than the ???????? of Matthew 13:55. Even were the difference not so distinct in the manuscripts, I would not argue the point.

I also agree with you that there is no problem with Jesus being a carpenter. If he were, that would be fine with me and I do not look down upon a man who does any honest work. However, considering the source of the information, I refuse to accept whatever they say as truth. I believe Matthew and Mark, but they did not write to us that Jesus was a carpenter. They wrote that the ones who scoffed at Jesus said, “Is this not the carpenter?” The rhetorical question of those who scoffed at Jesus is not a reliable source of truth.

]]> By: JD42 http://www.truthtalklive.com/2009/09/18/apologetics-down-under/comment-page-1/#comment-27854 JD42 Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:38:39 +0000 http://www.truthtalklive.com/?p=3147#comment-27854 This might be a bit technical, but for Mark 6:3 to be translated "the carpenters son" or " the son of the carpenter," tekton would need to be in the genitive case. It is not; it is in the nominative case. So, the proper translation in Mark 6:3 is "Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary ..." This doesn't settle the case as to whether of not he was a actually carpenter. He may or may not have been. Personally, I don't see any problem with him being a carpenter. One would expect him to have an occupation that others would look down on, being born in a stable and all. This might be a bit technical, but for Mark 6:3 to be translated “the carpenters son” or ” the son of the carpenter,” tekton would need to be in the genitive case. It is not; it is in the nominative case. So, the proper translation in Mark 6:3 is “Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary …” This doesn’t settle the case as to whether of not he was a actually carpenter. He may or may not have been. Personally, I don’t see any problem with him being a carpenter. One would expect him to have an occupation that others would look down on, being born in a stable and all.

]]> By: Ben Maulis http://www.truthtalklive.com/2009/09/18/apologetics-down-under/comment-page-1/#comment-27851 Ben Maulis Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:36:44 +0000 http://www.truthtalklive.com/?p=3147#comment-27851 I am not convinced Jesus was a carpenter. The only evidence we have of that is the rhetorical question made by those scoffers who ridiculed him, who disbelieved him and who dishonored him. Both Matthew and Mark recorded that they questioned whether he were not "tekton huios," or the carpenter's son. However, because Mary's name is also adjacent the phrase in Mark's account, it is translated, "the carpenter, son of Mary..." It remains plausible that by both accounts they were specifically implying that he was the son of Joseph, whom they identified as a carpenter. But we know it is not true that Christ is the son of Joseph. Why then should we accept as truth what these liars who rejected the prophets and dishonored Christ have implied by a question? I am not convinced Jesus was a carpenter. The only evidence we have of that is the rhetorical question made by those scoffers who ridiculed him, who disbelieved him and who dishonored him. Both Matthew and Mark recorded that they questioned whether he were not “tekton huios,” or the carpenter’s son. However, because Mary’s name is also adjacent the phrase in Mark’s account, it is translated, “the carpenter, son of Mary…” It remains plausible that by both accounts they were specifically implying that he was the son of Joseph, whom they identified as a carpenter. But we know it is not true that Christ is the son of Joseph. Why then should we accept as truth what these liars who rejected the prophets and dishonored Christ have implied by a question?

]]>