Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

156Re: [ematthew] the occasion of the demand for a sign in Matt. 16:1

Expand Messages
  • John Lupia
    Nov 16, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...>
      wrote:

      >
      >
      > John Lupia wrote:
      >
      > > Dear Jeffrey:
      > >
      > > This is a question of geography and demography. In
      > > both Matt. 16:1-4 and Matt 12:38-39 Jesus is in
      > Upper
      > > Galilee. Mt 15:21-28 he is in Lebanon at Saida
      > (Sidon)
      > > and Sur (Tyre). Mt 15:29-39 Jesus travels 35 miles
      > NE
      > > from Sur (Tyre) to Lake Kinneret (Sea of Galilee;
      > also
      > > Lake Tiberias). Mt 15:29b places him on a mountain
      > > along the Lake Kinneret rim. Where is uncertain.
      > The
      > > demographic mix would be predominantly Jewish.
      >
      > Even assuming that the Matthew's geography is as
      > precise as you believe it is


      First, it is what the text says. Second, you are the
      one who wishes to know the demography of the mutes. To
      ignore the geographic locale that can be considered in
      answering or attempting to answer the question, would,
      in my opinion, fail to be a complete investigation on
      the question and would leave you open to criticism on
      that point. Third, I was imprecise myself since I
      noticed a lapsus calami on my part when I wrote "Jesus
      travels 35 miles NE" when it should have read "Jesus
      travels 35 miles SE". Sorry for the typo. Fourth, it
      has nothing to do with what I personally believe. I
      was pointing out essential material that must be
      considered using scientific criteria.




      (and
      > why do you insist on using terminology for the
      > places named at Matt. 15:21 and
      > 15:29 that the Matthew himself doesn't use?),


      The nomenclature of the geographic places is properly
      given with both modern or contemporary names as well
      as those given by Matthew or any other antique writer
      (the ancient names) as a standard academic form as I
      was taught back in graduate biblical studies.


      there
      > is still the fact that you
      > haven't taken account of -- that the mutes were
      > *brought* to Jesus.


      This is selective on your part. You choose to not give
      credence to Matthew's geography but at the same time
      choose to completely believe "that the mutes were
      *brought* to Jesus. How do you make determinations on
      which parts of the text you selectively choose to
      believe and discard or disregard? Moreover, the lame,
      blind and mutes were among the crowd that came to
      Jesus from the geographic location on the Lake
      Kinneret rim that might be identifiable in light of Mt
      16:5,13. Since traveling to the other side of the Lake
      Kinneret rim placed them within walking distance of
      Caesarea Philippi NE it indicates that the time of the
      healing of the lame, blind and mutes he was NW in
      Upper Galilee as I said yesterday. Being NE in the
      district of Caesarea Phili put Jesus then on the
      east-west highway, an international trade route
      running from there to Sur (Tyre), Lebanon and
      Damascus, Syria. If Jesus and the crowds with the
      infirm had convened there then your inquiry regarding
      Gentile ethnicity would be further strengthened and
      legitimized. However, Mt 16:5 tells us they crossed
      over to the other side to be in that location. So,
      hence, the crux of your question becomes severely
      weakened in any attempt to identify the infirm with
      Gentile specific ethnicity. However, if you
      selectively choose to disregard Matthew's geography
      the question of demography will remain open and
      answerable exclusively by other criteria that ignores
      geography.


      The real
      > issue is where they were brought from, not where
      > Jesus is.


      This needs to be seriously reconsidered by you if you
      are to be taken seriously.

      > Besides that, are there no mountains PARA THN
      > QALASSAN THS GALILAIAS that are
      > Gentile territory? And what do you make of the
      > description in Matt. 15:38 that
      > the healings take place somewhere away from and
      > outside of the region of Magadan?

      See my above comments regarding this. Curiously, you
      selectively choose to believe this and are aware that
      Jesus, in Matthew's description, is on the west side,
      not the east. If they are away from Magadan (Magdala)
      they are obviously north or possibly south, but
      certainly, not east prohibited by Mt 16:5.

      Cheers,
      John

      =====
      John N. Lupia, III
      Toms River New Jersey 08757 USA
      Fax: (732) 349-3910
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/
      God Bless America



      __________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
      http://my.yahoo.com
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic