Jump to content

John 7:41-42


Recommended Posts

First off, I say "No they din't think so at all"

 

Many say the writer implicitly agrees that Jesus comes from both Galilee and Bethlehem (v. 7:42) They will link it back to the Matthew and Luke verses saying so and somtimes even Isaiah 9:2 (which makes no sense at all) In my reading of this scripture and with taking the later part of v. 7:41 into account, the writer is having the crowd say this: (v. 41b) "How can this be the Messiah when he is from Galilee? (v.42) Because isn't the Christ supposed to come from Bethlehem?" In verse v. 42, the writer is making a connection to the known Micah 5:2 scripture, but never confirming a Davidic connection in no other place the gospel. For me, the numbering of the verses is wrong, with v. 41b and v. 42 belonging together as one verse because they were part of the same statement. Moreover the writer did not actually know of the Joseph to David connection (but did know about Micah 5:2) and defiantly not any of the Matthew/Luke tails of a Bethlehem birth. The writer implies a Galilee only connection in verses 1:45, 6:42 & 7:41-42.

 

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not being dismissive when I ask, why does it matter?

 

Questions get asked all the time that don't matter. It's part of being human... Asking a question whether it matters or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not being dismissive when I ask, why does it matter?

 

Questions get asked all the time that don't matter. It's part of being human... Asking a question whether it matters or not.

 

 

My point is that trying to match up New Testament scriptures to Old Testament prophesies does not work, and if you don't believe, why would you keep trying to make the Bible make sense?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not being dismissive when I ask, why does it matter?

 

Questions get asked all the time that don't matter. It's part of being human... Asking a question whether it matters or not.

 

 

My point is that trying to match up New Testament scriptures to Old Testament prophesies does not work, and if you don't believe, why would you keep trying to make the Bible make sense?

 

 

 

I guess my point now is, you did not read my orgiinal post. The OT refrance was not the point of the question or the post.

 

Also, if you did not care for or like the question or any question, why did you replay? Many times, less is more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

First off, I say "No they din't think so at all"

 

Many say the writer implicitly agrees that Jesus comes from both Galilee and Bethlehem (v. 7:42) They will link it back to the Matthew and Luke verses saying so and somtimes even Isaiah 9:2 (which makes no sense at all) In my reading of this scripture and with taking the later part of v. 7:41 into account, the writer is having the crowd say this: (v. 41b) "How can this be the Messiah when he is from Galilee? (v.42) Because isn't the Christ supposed to come from Bethlehem?" In verse v. 42, the writer is making a connection to the known Micah 5:2 scripture, but never confirming a Davidic connection in no other place the gospel. For me, the numbering of the verses is wrong, with v. 41b and v. 42 belonging together as one verse because they were part of the same statement. Moreover the writer did not actually know of the Joseph to David connection (but did know about Micah 5:2) and defiantly not any of the Matthew/Luke tails of a Bethlehem birth. The writer implies a Galilee only connection in verses 1:45, 6:42 & 7:41-42.

 

What do you think?

Ignore verse numberings. They're not in the "originals" (meaning they were added much later) so they really don't matter. The verses can pretty much be read however you want as long as the language supports it (you're not breaking the grammar rules all to hell). I'm not going to bother to see if what you're wanting to do is a problem or not. It probably doesn't matter.

 

Other than that what do I think about what? Are you trying to make this text agree with the synoptics? Disagree with them? It appears you're saying that G.John disagrees with the synoptics. That could be. But are you saying he doesn't agree or is ignorant of them altogether? It appears to me that you're making a type of argument against the "many" start to speak about and their position but I can't say I'm familiar with that position so I guess that's why I'm a little lost here.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.