(October 23, 2015 at 12:28 am)Irrational Wrote: How about the fact that they simply contadict each other? It's not like they were necessarily aware of each other's works.

Matthew and Luke share some common material not found in Mark or any other work. So, it's generally thought that one of them was familiar with the other's work before writing his own. I believe most think that Matthew was written first, and Luke had access to it.

(October 23, 2015 at 8:57 am)alpha male Wrote:

(October 23, 2015 at 12:28 am)Irrational Wrote: How about the fact that they simply contadict each other? It's not like they were necessarily aware of each other's works.

Matthew and Luke share some common material not found in Mark or any other work. So, it's generally thought that one of them was familiar with the other's work before writing his own. I believe most think that Matthew was written first, and Luke had access to it.

I don't think that "Luke" had access to "Matthew". The blatantly different nativity accounts show that to be the case. According to many scholars, they did independently have access to "Mark" and also "Q", whatever it may have been (whether oral or written).

Matthew certainly had access to a large quantity of bullshit that even the other gospel authors would find embarresing.

That's if anything they wrote was meant to be taken at all literally. I'm not convinced it was.

(October 23, 2015 at 9:29 am)Irrational Wrote: I don't think that "Luke" had access to "Matthew". The blatantly different nativity accounts show that to be the case. According to many scholars, they did independently have access to "Mark" and also "Q", whatever it may have been (whether oral or written).

You need to account for the similarities between Matthew and Luke that aren't found in Mark in some way. If you want to invent a Q to explain it, that's your choice, but it's far simpler to suppose that Luke had a copy of Matthew. Occam's Razor and that. I'll accept Q when a copy of Q with the common passages and predating Matthew and Luke is found.

(October 23, 2015 at 10:16 am)alpha male Wrote:

(October 23, 2015 at 9:29 am)Irrational Wrote: I don't think that "Luke" had access to "Matthew". The blatantly different nativity accounts show that to be the case. According to many scholars, they did independently have access to "Mark" and also "Q", whatever it may have been (whether oral or written).

You need to account for the similarities between Matthew and Luke that aren't found in Mark in some way. If you want to invent a Q to explain it, that's your choice, but it's far simpler to suppose that Luke had a copy of Matthew. Occam's Razor and that. I'll accept Q when a copy of Q with the common passages and predating Matthew and Luke is found.

You're misusing that principle. You want to apply Occam's Razor properly, stop ignoring certain pieces of evidence.

(October 23, 2015 at 10:20 am)Irrational Wrote: You're misusing that principle. You want to apply Occam's Razor properly, stop ignoring certain pieces of evidence.

Conjecture of Q is unnecessary addition of an entity, and that's a violation of Occam's Razor.

the lineage to David in Luke was also through Joseph and not Mary

if no relation to Joseph and therefore no relation to David then Jesus cannot be the Messiah and Jesus is a liar ... or if Jesus was telling the truth and was related to David he can be the Messiah and prophesy fulfilled but was human not born of a virgin and related to Joseph who was in Davids line

Luke 3:23-38English Standard Version (ESV)
The Genealogy of Jesus Christ

23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,[a] the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,

---

(October 23, 2015 at 10:16 am)alpha male Wrote:

(October 23, 2015 at 9:29 am)Irrational Wrote: I don't think that "Luke" had access to "Matthew". The blatantly different nativity accounts show that to be the case. According to many scholars, they did independently have access to "Mark" and also "Q", whatever it may have been (whether oral or written).

You need to account for the similarities between Matthew and Luke that aren't found in Mark in some way. If you want to invent a Q to explain it, that's your choice, but it's far simpler to suppose that Luke had a copy of Matthew. Occam's Razor and that. I'll accept Q when a copy of Q with the common passages and predating Matthew and Luke is found.

dont you think the Catholic Church would suppress anything and everything that is seen as a threat to their theology ? they are nothing more than a very rich and powerful corporation and have been for over 1000 years not going to give up anything they're very comfy with the status quo just as it is.

The reason Mary is not implicitly mentioned by name is because the ancient Hebrews never permitted the name of a woman to enter the genealogical tables, but inserted her husband as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law.

The view of "as was supposed of Joseph" regards Luke as calling Jesus a son of Eli—meaning that Heli was the maternal grandfather of Jesus, with Luke tracing the ancestry of Jesus through Mary.

Therefore per Adam Clarke (1817), John Wesley, John Kitto and others the expression "Joseph, [ ] of Heli", without the word "son" being present in the Greek, indicates that "Joseph, of Heli" is to be read "Joseph, [son-in-law] of Heli"

(October 23, 2015 at 10:45 am)jenny1972 Wrote: the lineage to David in Luke was also through Joseph and not Mary

The idea is that Joseph was the son in law of Heli. In the original, "son" isn't specified - it just says "of Heli, of Matthat," etc.

Quote:if no relation to Joseph and therefore no relation to David

No, even if you take both as through Joseph (which some scholars do), Jesus could still be in the bloodline of David through Mary.

(October 23, 2015 at 10:45 am)jenny1972 Wrote: dont you think the Catholic Church would suppress anything that contradicted their theology they are nothing more than a very rich and powerful corporation and have been for over 1000 years not going to give up anything theyre very comfy with the status quo as it is

Now conspiracy theories? Why don't you just give it up?