Talk:Matt 1:6-10 - Revision history

KurtElieson: Moving content to regrouped page

2013-12-01T04:24:34Z

Moving content to regrouped page

Matthewfaulconer: /* Guiltlessness in v. 6 */ comma

2006-11-27T03:00:06Z

‎Guiltlessness in v. 6: comma

Matthewfaulconer: /* Guiltlessness in v. 6 */ revising

2006-11-27T02:59:21Z

‎Guiltlessness in v. 6: revising

Matthewfaulconer: sub-page

2006-11-27T02:57:16Z

sub-page

Joe Spencer: /* Guiltlessness in v. 6 */

2006-11-27T00:45:27Z

‎Guiltlessness in v. 6

RobertC: here makes sense

2006-11-26T13:16:26Z

here makes sense

Joe Spencer: wonderful!

2006-11-25T16:05:58Z

wonderful!

Matthewfaulconer: please double-check

2006-11-25T06:04:16Z

please double-check

Seanmcox: Citing Matthew

2006-11-23T15:31:26Z

Citing Matthew

Joe Spencer: quick explanation

2006-11-22T15:52:09Z

quick explanation

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:24, 1 December 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~==Guiltlessness in v. 6==~~
−	~~How is it that Matthew seems to have found her guiltless? (and the same with Rahab?) --[[User:Seanmcox\|Seanmcox]] 19:07, 21 Nov 2006 (UTC)~~

−	:I think Robert's x-ref's probably help with Rahab in general. My point is that there are five women in the list (none of whom "need" to be mentioned at all in a genealogy), and that all of them--this is as clear as can be--have some sort of sexual stigma about them. For three--perhaps four--it is clear that the sexual stigma is a common public misreading (this is for the four besides Bath-sheba). The implication--and it is only an implication I am trying to draw out here--is that the same is true of Bath-sheba, that somehow she is also misread in terms of her sexual stigma. In other words, she might have been guiltless. The genealogy suggests one go back and re-read the story carefully (this does not suggest that David was innocent, since Judah does not seem to be let off the hook at all). I hope that helps. --[[User:Joe Spencer\|Joe Spencer]] 15:52, 22 Nov 2006 (UTC)
−
−	::My original point was about the phrase "Matthew seemed to think her guiltless". It all seems a bit tenuous to me. There is nothing there that is either explicit or implicit, but rather interestingly anomalous, possibly.
−
−	::Certainly the five women are interestingly anomalous. Perhaps (probably) they were foreordained to be mothers to the savior and thus, in order to fulfill their earthly missions, it became necessary to transgress the laws and they were then justified by the Lord for their necessary trnsgressions and perhaps that could be read into the [[James 2:25]] reference, though I hardly see what being a harlot had to do with it, unless it was by continued harloting that the savior's line came to be (do we know anything about that?) but short of that, their presence in the genealogy could be explained otherwise (these 5 women were well known scriptural figures) and I see no evidence either internal or external to support the intentions of the author that are being suggested.
−
−	::It is an interesting thought all the same and one thing that makes this bit of scripture apt for comment, I see, is that it ties all the women together in the genealogy. (perfect for commenting on the group) However, I think the idea needs some better explaining and I don't think there is any reason Matthew should be cited as suggesting something he did not really suggest, but if you want to read something into this genealogy, which I would not suggest, it could also be restated better. --[[User:Seanmcox\|Seanmcox]] 15:31, 23 Nov 2006 (UTC)
−
−	~~Hi Joe, please take a look at my rewrite and make sure I didn't mess anything up. Thanks. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer\|Matthew Faulconer]] 06:04, 25 Nov 2006 (UTC)~~
−
−	:I like the direction this commentary has gone. I think it is very well done now. I think that the discussion is thorough enough that it might merit some further discussion of how Bath-sheba might have been innocent. There is only the slightest hint of such a possibility in the OT text, but there may be reason to discuss it here. What do you think would be better? --[[User:Joe Spencer\|Joe Spencer]] 16:05, 25 Nov 2006 (UTC)
−
−	:If this is the passage that suggests it, I think here makes sense. If someone disagrees or things get to far afield, we can always move things to a subpage (your favorite solution, I know Joe...). --[[User:RobertC\|RobertC]] 13:16, 26 Nov 2006 (UTC)
−
−	Actually, Robert, I think this is perhaps a good example of where a sub-page is a good idea: the point of the passage is not to think about Bath-sheba, but Jesus, and so to take up the issue on a sub-page seems to place the right emphasis on the subject. If someone wants to create one, or tell me how to do so, I'll get some work on the question started. --[[User:Joe Spencer\|Joe Spencer]] 00:45, 27 Nov 2006 (UTC)
−
−	:I think a sub-page makes sense. You might choose to have a sub-page of your user page or you might choose a sub-page of this page (Matt 1:6-10). Neither seems quite right to me. I think the ideal place would be a section of the wiki devoted to special topics, since the topic is probably broader than just a discussion of what is found here in Matthew. However, we don't have a place designated as such. Given that, I am indifferent. In case you want to use a sub-page of Matt 1:6-10, I created this [[Matt_1:6-10/Bathsheba\|one]]. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer\|Matthew Faulconer]] 02:57, 27 Nov 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:00, 27 November 2006
Line 18:		Line 18:
	Actually, Robert, I think this is perhaps a good example of where a sub-page is a good idea: the point of the passage is not to think about Bath-sheba, but Jesus, and so to take up the issue on a sub-page seems to place the right emphasis on the subject. If someone wants to create one, or tell me how to do so, I'll get some work on the question started. --[[User:Joe Spencer\|Joe Spencer]] 00:45, 27 Nov 2006 (UTC)		Actually, Robert, I think this is perhaps a good example of where a sub-page is a good idea: the point of the passage is not to think about Bath-sheba, but Jesus, and so to take up the issue on a sub-page seems to place the right emphasis on the subject. If someone wants to create one, or tell me how to do so, I'll get some work on the question started. --[[User:Joe Spencer\|Joe Spencer]] 00:45, 27 Nov 2006 (UTC)

−	:I think a sub-page makes sense. You might choose to have a sub-page of your user page or you might choose a sub-page of this page (Matt 1:6-10). Neither seems quite right to me. I think the ideal place would be a section of the wiki devoted to special topics, since the topic is probably broader than just a discussion of what is found here in Matthew. However, we don't have a place designated as such. Given that I am indifferent. In case you want to use a sub-page of Matt 1:6-10, I created this [[Matt_1:6-10/Bathsheba\|one]]. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer\|Matthew Faulconer]] 02:57, 27 Nov 2006 (UTC)	+	:I think a sub-page makes sense. You might choose to have a sub-page of your user page or you might choose a sub-page of this page (Matt 1:6-10). Neither seems quite right to me. I think the ideal place would be a section of the wiki devoted to special topics, since the topic is probably broader than just a discussion of what is found here in Matthew. However, we don't have a place designated as such. Given that, I am indifferent. In case you want to use a sub-page of Matt 1:6-10, I created this [[Matt_1:6-10/Bathsheba\|one]]. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer\|Matthew Faulconer]] 02:57, 27 Nov 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:59, 27 November 2006
Line 18:		Line 18:
	Actually, Robert, I think this is perhaps a good example of where a sub-page is a good idea: the point of the passage is not to think about Bath-sheba, but Jesus, and so to take up the issue on a sub-page seems to place the right emphasis on the subject. If someone wants to create one, or tell me how to do so, I'll get some work on the question started. --[[User:Joe Spencer\|Joe Spencer]] 00:45, 27 Nov 2006 (UTC)		Actually, Robert, I think this is perhaps a good example of where a sub-page is a good idea: the point of the passage is not to think about Bath-sheba, but Jesus, and so to take up the issue on a sub-page seems to place the right emphasis on the subject. If someone wants to create one, or tell me how to do so, I'll get some work on the question started. --[[User:Joe Spencer\|Joe Spencer]] 00:45, 27 Nov 2006 (UTC)

−	:I think a sub-page makes sense. You might choose to have a sub-page of your user page or you might choose a sub-page of this page (Matt 1:6-10). Neither seems quite right to me. I think the ideal place would be a section of the wiki devoted to special topics, since the topic is probably broader than just a discussion of what is found here in Matthew. However, we don't have a place designated as such. Given that I ~~would recommend~~ a sub-page of ~~your user page. And at some point~~, ~~maybe we should create a special topics section for stuff like~~ this. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer\|Matthew Faulconer]] 02:57, 27 Nov 2006 (UTC)	+	:I think a sub-page makes sense. You might choose to have a sub-page of your user page or you might choose a sub-page of this page (Matt 1:6-10). Neither seems quite right to me. I think the ideal place would be a section of the wiki devoted to special topics, since the topic is probably broader than just a discussion of what is found here in Matthew. However, we don't have a place designated as such. Given that I am indifferent. In case you want to use a sub-page of Matt 1:6-10, I created this [[Matt_1:6-10/Bathsheba\|one]]. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer\|Matthew Faulconer]] 02:57, 27 Nov 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:57, 27 November 2006
Line 17:		Line 17:

	Actually, Robert, I think this is perhaps a good example of where a sub-page is a good idea: the point of the passage is not to think about Bath-sheba, but Jesus, and so to take up the issue on a sub-page seems to place the right emphasis on the subject. If someone wants to create one, or tell me how to do so, I'll get some work on the question started. --[[User:Joe Spencer\|Joe Spencer]] 00:45, 27 Nov 2006 (UTC)		Actually, Robert, I think this is perhaps a good example of where a sub-page is a good idea: the point of the passage is not to think about Bath-sheba, but Jesus, and so to take up the issue on a sub-page seems to place the right emphasis on the subject. If someone wants to create one, or tell me how to do so, I'll get some work on the question started. --[[User:Joe Spencer\|Joe Spencer]] 00:45, 27 Nov 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	:I think a sub-page makes sense. You might choose to have a sub-page of your user page or you might choose a sub-page of this page (Matt 1:6-10). Neither seems quite right to me. I think the ideal place would be a section of the wiki devoted to special topics, since the topic is probably broader than just a discussion of what is found here in Matthew. However, we don't have a place designated as such. Given that I would recommend a sub-page of your user page. And at some point, maybe we should create a special topics section for stuff like this. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer\|Matthew Faulconer]] 02:57, 27 Nov 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:45, 27 November 2006
Line 15:		Line 15:

	:If this is the passage that suggests it, I think here makes sense. If someone disagrees or things get to far afield, we can always move things to a subpage (your favorite solution, I know Joe...). --[[User:RobertC\|RobertC]] 13:16, 26 Nov 2006 (UTC)		:If this is the passage that suggests it, I think here makes sense. If someone disagrees or things get to far afield, we can always move things to a subpage (your favorite solution, I know Joe...). --[[User:RobertC\|RobertC]] 13:16, 26 Nov 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	Actually, Robert, I think this is perhaps a good example of where a sub-page is a good idea: the point of the passage is not to think about Bath-sheba, but Jesus, and so to take up the issue on a sub-page seems to place the right emphasis on the subject. If someone wants to create one, or tell me how to do so, I'll get some work on the question started. --[[User:Joe Spencer\|Joe Spencer]] 00:45, 27 Nov 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:16, 26 November 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	==Guiltlessness in v. 6==
	How is it that Matthew seems to have found her guiltless? (and the same with Rahab?) --[[User:Seanmcox\|Seanmcox]] 19:07, 21 Nov 2006 (UTC)		How is it that Matthew seems to have found her guiltless? (and the same with Rahab?) --[[User:Seanmcox\|Seanmcox]] 19:07, 21 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Line 12:		Line 13:

	:I like the direction this commentary has gone. I think it is very well done now. I think that the discussion is thorough enough that it might merit some further discussion of how Bath-sheba might have been innocent. There is only the slightest hint of such a possibility in the OT text, but there may be reason to discuss it here. What do you think would be better? --[[User:Joe Spencer\|Joe Spencer]] 16:05, 25 Nov 2006 (UTC)		:I like the direction this commentary has gone. I think it is very well done now. I think that the discussion is thorough enough that it might merit some further discussion of how Bath-sheba might have been innocent. There is only the slightest hint of such a possibility in the OT text, but there may be reason to discuss it here. What do you think would be better? --[[User:Joe Spencer\|Joe Spencer]] 16:05, 25 Nov 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	:If this is the passage that suggests it, I think here makes sense. If someone disagrees or things get to far afield, we can always move things to a subpage (your favorite solution, I know Joe...). --[[User:RobertC\|RobertC]] 13:16, 26 Nov 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:05, 25 November 2006
Line 10:		Line 10:

	Hi Joe, please take a look at my rewrite and make sure I didn't mess anything up. Thanks. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer\|Matthew Faulconer]] 06:04, 25 Nov 2006 (UTC)		Hi Joe, please take a look at my rewrite and make sure I didn't mess anything up. Thanks. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer\|Matthew Faulconer]] 06:04, 25 Nov 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	:I like the direction this commentary has gone. I think it is very well done now. I think that the discussion is thorough enough that it might merit some further discussion of how Bath-sheba might have been innocent. There is only the slightest hint of such a possibility in the OT text, but there may be reason to discuss it here. What do you think would be better? --[[User:Joe Spencer\|Joe Spencer]] 16:05, 25 Nov 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:04, 25 November 2006
Line 8:		Line 8:

	::It is an interesting thought all the same and one thing that makes this bit of scripture apt for comment, I see, is that it ties all the women together in the genealogy. (perfect for commenting on the group) However, I think the idea needs some better explaining and I don't think there is any reason Matthew should be cited as suggesting something he did not really suggest, but if you want to read something into this genealogy, which I would not suggest, it could also be restated better. --[[User:Seanmcox\|Seanmcox]] 15:31, 23 Nov 2006 (UTC)		::It is an interesting thought all the same and one thing that makes this bit of scripture apt for comment, I see, is that it ties all the women together in the genealogy. (perfect for commenting on the group) However, I think the idea needs some better explaining and I don't think there is any reason Matthew should be cited as suggesting something he did not really suggest, but if you want to read something into this genealogy, which I would not suggest, it could also be restated better. --[[User:Seanmcox\|Seanmcox]] 15:31, 23 Nov 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	Hi Joe, please take a look at my rewrite and make sure I didn't mess anything up. Thanks. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer\|Matthew Faulconer]] 06:04, 25 Nov 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:31, 23 November 2006
Line 2:		Line 2:

	:I think Robert's x-ref's probably help with Rahab in general. My point is that there are five women in the list (none of whom "need" to be mentioned at all in a genealogy), and that all of them--this is as clear as can be--have some sort of sexual stigma about them. For three--perhaps four--it is clear that the sexual stigma is a common public misreading (this is for the four besides Bath-sheba). The implication--and it is only an implication I am trying to draw out here--is that the same is true of Bath-sheba, that somehow she is also misread in terms of her sexual stigma. In other words, she might have been guiltless. The genealogy suggests one go back and re-read the story carefully (this does not suggest that David was innocent, since Judah does not seem to be let off the hook at all). I hope that helps. --[[User:Joe Spencer\|Joe Spencer]] 15:52, 22 Nov 2006 (UTC)		:I think Robert's x-ref's probably help with Rahab in general. My point is that there are five women in the list (none of whom "need" to be mentioned at all in a genealogy), and that all of them--this is as clear as can be--have some sort of sexual stigma about them. For three--perhaps four--it is clear that the sexual stigma is a common public misreading (this is for the four besides Bath-sheba). The implication--and it is only an implication I am trying to draw out here--is that the same is true of Bath-sheba, that somehow she is also misread in terms of her sexual stigma. In other words, she might have been guiltless. The genealogy suggests one go back and re-read the story carefully (this does not suggest that David was innocent, since Judah does not seem to be let off the hook at all). I hope that helps. --[[User:Joe Spencer\|Joe Spencer]] 15:52, 22 Nov 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	::My original point was about the phrase "Matthew seemed to think her guiltless". It all seems a bit tenuous to me. There is nothing there that is either explicit or implicit, but rather interestingly anomalous, possibly.
		+
		+	::Certainly the five women are interestingly anomalous. Perhaps (probably) they were foreordained to be mothers to the savior and thus, in order to fulfill their earthly missions, it became necessary to transgress the laws and they were then justified by the Lord for their necessary trnsgressions and perhaps that could be read into the [[James 2:25]] reference, though I hardly see what being a harlot had to do with it, unless it was by continued harloting that the savior's line came to be (do we know anything about that?) but short of that, their presence in the genealogy could be explained otherwise (these 5 women were well known scriptural figures) and I see no evidence either internal or external to support the intentions of the author that are being suggested.
		+
		+	::It is an interesting thought all the same and one thing that makes this bit of scripture apt for comment, I see, is that it ties all the women together in the genealogy. (perfect for commenting on the group) However, I think the idea needs some better explaining and I don't think there is any reason Matthew should be cited as suggesting something he did not really suggest, but if you want to read something into this genealogy, which I would not suggest, it could also be restated better. --[[User:Seanmcox\|Seanmcox]] 15:31, 23 Nov 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:52, 22 November 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	How is it that Matthew seems to have found her guiltless? (and the same with Rahab?) --[[User:Seanmcox\|Seanmcox]] 19:07, 21 Nov 2006 (UTC)		How is it that Matthew seems to have found her guiltless? (and the same with Rahab?) --[[User:Seanmcox\|Seanmcox]] 19:07, 21 Nov 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	:I think Robert's x-ref's probably help with Rahab in general. My point is that there are five women in the list (none of whom "need" to be mentioned at all in a genealogy), and that all of them--this is as clear as can be--have some sort of sexual stigma about them. For three--perhaps four--it is clear that the sexual stigma is a common public misreading (this is for the four besides Bath-sheba). The implication--and it is only an implication I am trying to draw out here--is that the same is true of Bath-sheba, that somehow she is also misread in terms of her sexual stigma. In other words, she might have been guiltless. The genealogy suggests one go back and re-read the story carefully (this does not suggest that David was innocent, since Judah does not seem to be let off the hook at all). I hope that helps. --[[User:Joe Spencer\|Joe Spencer]] 15:52, 22 Nov 2006 (UTC)