From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:08:42 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications, Plano Tx.

The argument that Luke's genealogy refers to Mary does not stand
up very well.  There definitely appear to be two genealogies of 
Joseph.  Assuming that neither account is in error, we have a dilemma.
Or, rather, a mystery.  There is another possible solution that cannot
be resolved on the basis of the speculative debate format of this 
newsgroup, but it is at least worth mentioning for anyone who would like
to explore it further.  The resolution lies in that Matthew and Luke 
are talking about two different children and two different sets of parents.
The names (Jesus, Joseph, and Mary) are the same.  This is based on the
work of Rudolf Steiner, which is neither meant to be taken on faith or
taken as a speculative interpretation.

How there could be two Jesus children (aside from the apparent coincidence
in the names) opens up a whole new list of spiritual and material issues
that make most people who know about it reluctant to even mention it. This
includes the problem that from the start of Jesus ministry at the age of
thirty, there is only one Jesus of Nazareth, the same who died on the
cross, was buried, and rose again.  Steiner is quite definite about that,
but how it can be so is, again, a whole new story.  The turning point, by
the way, is related in Luke's account of the twelve year old Jesus in the
temple.

Again, the atmosphere of debate from doctrinal and skeptical points of view
characteristic of this forum will likely cause this posting to be dismissed
our condemned or laughed at from even sincere and serious critics on all
sides.  But I offer it anyway as a possible touchstone for anyone who might
be interested in exploring it further.  

For what it is worth, I believe that Steiner's approach is more in harmony
with a fundamentalist interpretation than with a rationalistic or new age
approach, though few will probably agree. In my experience the Bible invariably
means what it says and when there is an apparent conflict, it is almost always
fruitful to recognize it as a possible window for insight and understanding,
if not immediately then at some time in the future.  To insist on immediate
resolution, either by fitting it into one's present system of theological
truth or to dismiss it as an error or even an outright deception, is to
shut doors of possible understanding of realities that one is not yet aware
of.  This is a little different than the doctrine of inerrancy.  My convictions
are also not based on blind faith or, as a critic of a recent posting likes to
say, laziness.  We have faith in many things, including things of science, 
which grows, like a plant, not out of a single process of rationalization, 
but out of life experience over many years.  Each person follows his own life
path in this, but it is not merely a matter of blind or lazy faith versus clear, 
logical reason.  Knowledge is greater than faith or reason, but it includes 
both as well as much more.  There is such a thing as seeing faith.  And when
we reason, we also have the expression, "I see" that marks a turning point
in one's growth in knowledge. Faith if strong enough should be able to live 
with unresolved mysteries.  Reason, if broad enough in its perception, should
be able to allow that there may be many effective ways on the path to knowledge 
besides its own.

	Gerry Palo