(October 23, 2015 at 12:01 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(October 23, 2015 at 11:37 am)jenny1972 Wrote: Joachim (/ˈdʒoʊ.əkɪm/; "he whom Yahweh has set up", Hebrew: יְהוֹיָקִים Yəhôyāqîm, Greek Ἰωακείμ Iōākeím) was the husband of Saint Anne and the father of Mary the mother of Jesus, according to the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican traditions. The story of Joachim and Anne first appears in the apocryphal Gospel of James. Joachim and Anne are not mentioned in the Bible.

Joachim not Heli was the father of Mary Jesus did not have any relation to David on his mothers side so therefore he cannot be considered the Messiah

How can you know who was her father? Some things are just unknown. And Heli is meant to be the father of Joseph according to Luke. According to Matthew, it was Jacob.

As for Mary's father, the name is never mentioned, so that's the answer.

yes it was as stated above Marys father is spoken of in the apocryphal Gospel of James and he had no relation to David

(October 23, 2015 at 12:19 pm)jenny1972 Wrote:

(October 23, 2015 at 12:01 pm)Irrational Wrote: How can you know who was her father? Some things are just unknown. And Heli is meant to be the father of Joseph according to Luke. According to Matthew, it was Jacob.

As for Mary's father, the name is never mentioned, so that's the answer.

yes it was as stated above Marys father is spoken of in the apocryphal Gospel of James and he had no relation to David

Wasn't that written long after the Gospels? Sometime in the second century AD?

(October 23, 2015 at 12:05 pm)robvalue Wrote: You'd think they could make an exception to their genealogy rules for the mother of god.

lol yea well if Jesus was God incarnate all hed have to do is poof the rules right out of existence to accomodate himself or never made the rule to begin with if God planned to impregnate Mary later ... but watching christians try to jump through hoops to justify their strange 3 Gods in 1 theology is comical

(October 23, 2015 at 12:15 pm)Brian37 Wrote: When people quote their holy books all I hear is Charlie Brown's teacher. Wa wa wa wa Allah. Wa wa wa wa Yahweh. Wa wa wa wa Jesus.

...same as it ever was

(October 22, 2015 at 1:21 pm)Hmmm? Wrote: Why do they say the messiah was supposed to be descended from David? (Mt 22:42, Mk 12:35, Lk 20:41)

Patriarchal genealogy is garbage. We have DNA and science now.

(October 23, 2015 at 12:21 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(October 23, 2015 at 12:19 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: yes it was as stated above Marys father is spoken of in the apocryphal Gospel of James and he had no relation to David

Wasn't that written long after the Gospels? Sometime in the second century AD?

does it matter ? its an  accepted gospel of orthodox christians ( Marys parents didnt have a relation to David but several places in scripture explains how Joseph did have David as a relative and if Joseph begat Jesus then Jesus would have a relation to David also and could be the Messiah of prophesy ) but thats why the Jews cannot accept Jesus as the Messiah because of no blood link to David

When Christians refer to Jesus as king of the Jews, they are asserting, in essence that Jesus was the messiah, and the final heir to the throne of David. This claim, however, is self-defeating because it undermines the Christian claim that Jesus was miraculously conceived of a virgin.

According to both Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born of a virgin. This claim, however, completely shatters the core Christian claim that Jesus was a legitimate heir to David’s throne and king of the Jews. The virgin birth myth undermines this fundamental Church teaching because tribal lineage is traced only through a person’s father, never the mother. This principle is clearly stated in the Torah:


"And on the first day of the second month, they assembled the whole congregation together, who registered themselves by families, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names from twenty years old and upward, head by head."

(Numbers 1:18)

According to Christian teachings, Jesus had only a human Jewish mother, and was not related to Joseph. A human Jewish father, however is essential for anyone to be a legitimate heir to the throne of David

Mary’s genealogy is completely irrelevant to Jesus’ supposed lineage to King David. For good reason, nowhere in the New Testament is Mary’s genealogy recorded. As mentioned above, matrilineal ancestry is irrelevant to tribe identification. Both the first chapter of Matthew and in the third chapter of Luke contain a putative genealogy of Joseph alone. Although these two genealogies completely contradict each other, neither suggests that Mary was a descendant of king of David. Joseph’s genealogy is irrelevant to Jesus because according to two out of four Gospels claim that Joseph was not Jesus’ father. The author of the Book of Mark, the earliest of the four Gospels, knows nothing of a virgin birth

It should be noted that both Catholic and Protestant traditions hold that whereas Matthew’s genealogy is that of Joseph, Luke’s genealogy is of Mary. Although this tradition is nowhere to be found in the New Testament, it was a necessary doctrine for the Church to adopt.

To begin with, Paul claims in Romans 1:3 that Jesus was from the seed of David after the flesh. This has always been understood to mean that Paul was claiming that King David was the biological ancestor of Jesus. At the time when Paul penned the Book of Romans, he was completely unaware that Christendom would eventually claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. Consequently, the Church desperately needed Paul’s statement to correlate with the virgin-birth story.

In fact, Luke claims that Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth, who he says was a descendant of Aaron the high priest, placing her in the tribe of Levi, not David’s tribe of Judah. Moreover, in Luke 2:4, the author writes that the reason it was necessary for Joseph and Mary to return to Bethlehem was because it was Joseph, not Mary, who was from the House of David.

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David.
(Luke 2:4)

(October 23, 2015 at 11:19 am)Irrational Wrote:

(October 23, 2015 at 10:25 am)alpha male Wrote: Conjecture of Q is unnecessary addition of an entity, and that's a violation of Occam's Razor.

Except it's necessary until a better explanation comes along. Your explanation is not really parsimonious as it doesn't, for example, account for the differences between the genealogies that well. You have to add all sorts of unwarranted assumptions to reach the conclusion you want to make.

No, you just need to add one set of parentheses or a couple of commas to reach my position. That's far less than an entire Q source that was so well distributed that two gospel writers used it, but yet so rare that not a single copy survived.

(October 23, 2015 at 11:37 am)jenny1972 Wrote: Joachim (/ˈdʒoʊ.əkɪm/; "he whom Yahweh has set up", Hebrew: יְהוֹיָקִים Yəhôyāqîm, Greek Ἰωακείμ Iōākeím) was the husband of Saint Anne and the father of Mary the mother of Jesus, according to the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican traditions. The story of Joachim and Anne first appears in the apocryphal Gospel of James. Joachim and Anne are not mentioned in the Bible.

Joachim not Heli was the father of Mary Jesus did not have any relation to David on his mothers side so therefore he cannot be considered the Messiah

unless Jesus was begotten by Joseph just as his geneology states he was and then he can be the Messiah promised in scripture , but of course then that would make Jesus human and not born of a virgin and not half God , but simply Gods servant and prophet as Jesus himself stated he was since 'son of God' only meant servant of God to a rabbi studying the OT as Jesus was

First, we're speaking of the Bible, not non-canonical sources or traditions.

Second, you need to read further about the tradition. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

the name of Mary's father, Heli, agrees with the name given to Our Lady's father in a tradition founded upon the report of the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal Gospel which dates from the end of the second century. According to this document the parents of Mary are Joachim and Anna. Now, the name Joachim is only a variation of Heli or Eliachim, substituting one Divine name (Yahweh) for the other (Eli, Elohim).

(October 23, 2015 at 11:57 am)Irrational Wrote: And the differences. Don't be selective. If "Luke" had access to "Matthew", why did he write in a way as if he had no idea of Matthew's first couple of chapters?

He didn't see need to repeat it.

Quote:Why does his proposed genealogy contradict that of Matthew's in chapter 1?

Because one is of Joseph, the other Mary.

Quote:And why do the nativity stories seem like two very different stories that were trying to explain, each in their own way, how Jesus was supposedly born in Bethlehem but then got moved to Nazareth? Luke doesn't even pretend to acknowledge that Matthew 1 and 2 were ever written?

Again, he didn't see need to repeat it.

Quote:Even if we went along with your explanation that he had access to Matthew, what it really says is Luke didn't fully agree with Matthew and actually corrected him.

No, it says that Luke added additional information and saw no need to repeat Matthew's account.