This explanation from my knowledge has no historical basis. There wasn't any tradition of naming genealogies through the mother's line by using the father's name. It's only an ad hoc hypothesis by the apologist in order solve the contradiction.

Please provide actual evidence for this supposed tradition (rather than just assertions made on wacky sites).

(October 17, 2012 at 2:40 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: This explanation from my knowledge has no historical basis. There wasn't any tradition of naming genealogies through the mother's line by using the father's name. It's only an ad hoc hypothesis by the apologist in order solve the contradiction.

Please provide actual evidence for this supposed tradition (rather than just assertions made on wacky sites).

So you want 'proof' that I can put on a "wacky web site," but I am not allowed to use a "wacky website" for proof? does this accuratly define your challenge?

(October 17, 2012 at 8:17 pm)Drich Wrote:

(October 17, 2012 at 2:40 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: This explanation from my knowledge has no historical basis. There wasn't any tradition of naming genealogies through the mother's line by using the father's name. It's only an ad hoc hypothesis by the apologist in order solve the contradiction.

Please provide actual evidence for this supposed tradition (rather than just assertions made on wacky sites).

So you want 'proof' that I can put on a "wacky web site," but I am not allowed to use a "wacky website" for proof? does this accuratly define your challenge?

The site offered no proof. It was simply asserted. As far as I can tell, it's just an ad hoc (made up) hypothesis thought of merely to solve a contradiction.

(October 17, 2012 at 8:30 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote:

(October 17, 2012 at 8:17 pm)Drich Wrote: So you want 'proof' that I can put on a "wacky web site," but I am not allowed to use a "wacky website" for proof? does this accuratly define your challenge?

The site offered no proof. It was simply asserted. As far as I can tell, it's just an ad hoc (made up) hypothesis thought of merely to solve a contradiction.

http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/geneal.htm
On this web site we have the instructions to the Jews on how genelogies were to be recorded.

(October 17, 2012 at 9:12 pm)Drich Wrote:

(October 17, 2012 at 8:30 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: The site offered no proof. It was simply asserted. As far as I can tell, it's just an ad hoc (made up) hypothesis thought of merely to solve a contradiction.

http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/geneal.htm
On this web site we have the instructions to the Jews on how genelogies were to be recorded.

"Num 27:8, "Therefore, tell the Israelites; If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall let his heritage pass on to his daughter."

This says nothing about not explicitly saying that a genealogy was traced through the mothers line. You're wanting to have us believe that they would name the father even though they were tracing it through the mother's line which you haven't presented any evidence of.

The whole page reeks of circular reasoning. It can summed up with "The bible is inerrant so these two genealogy aren't in contradiction. One must be tracing the mother's line so lets make up stuff and twist the text to read it as the mother's line."

This is the worst part of the article:

Quote:So in order to trace the bloodline of Jesus through Heli, we would first have to go through Mary, His mother. This shows that Heli would be the blood father of Mary, and the father in law of Joseph. Even though the name of Mary is not listed, in order to comply with Jewish custom, it is certainly implied.

Oh, it's "certainly implied" is it? Only if you assume inerrancy (in trying to redeem inerrancy which is circular).

(October 18, 2012 at 2:43 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: "Num 27:8, "Therefore, tell the Israelites; If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall let his heritage pass on to his daughter."

As Joseph was alive when Christ was born Jews law demanded that he be mentioned. A woman's identified was tied to her husband or her Father. he Husband was alive so it is to his name that her son was identified.

Quote:This says nothing about not explicitly saying that a genealogy was traced through the mothers line.

Because you weren't supposed to do this in an offical Jewish geneology.

Quote: You're wanting to have us believe that they would name the father even though they were tracing it through the mother's line which you haven't presented any evidence of.

The evidence has been presented you just don't seem to understand it.

Again, Joseph was alive so technically the geneology was acredited to his house/his name as in accordance with Jewish law. Yet Luke in the geneology itself places doubt on the genetic claim that Joseph would have on Jesus. Then from Joseph starts back with Mary's father. (as their wasn't a jewish word for father in law.)

This is not the rubix cube your making it out to be.

Quote:The whole page reeks of circular reasoning. It can summed up with "The bible is inerrant so these two genealogy aren't in contradiction. One must be tracing the mother's line so lets make up stuff and twist the text to read it as the mother's line."

Then show me 'proof' that says this is made up. I am sure we are not the only two atheist Christian who have argued this point. It would not be hard for one of you to shut this arguement down if it is made us as you say it is.

Drippy your capacity for self-delusion is indeed fucking mind-blowing.

[quote]That is why the geneology starts with: "[undefined=undefined](as was supposed) [/undefined]the son of Joseph

This is a reference to the silly idea...although accepted in antiquity... that the gods could come down and fuck mortal women. Wake the fuck up, will you.

Try to remember that the catholics insist that joseph never fucked her.

(October 18, 2012 at 9:41 am)Drich Wrote: ....Yet Luke in the geneology itself places doubt on the genetic claim that Joseph would have on Jesus. Then from Joseph starts back with Mary's father. (as their wasn't a jewish word for father in law.)

It doesn't say that. You're reading into the text that it means Mary's line.

Quote:Then show me 'proof' that says this is made up. I am sure we are not the only two atheist Christian who have argued this point. It would not be hard for one of you to shut this arguement down if it is made us as you say it is.

Use a source that backs up assertions with evidence! The closet thing to evidence on that page was an allusion of Josephus.

Here's what you haven't provided evidence for: a practice of tracing genealogies through the mother's line while mentioning only the father.

(October 18, 2012 at 10:57 am)Minimalist Wrote: Try to remember that the catholics insist that joseph never fucked her.

The rest of Christianity knows this not to be true. Because Christ mentions his 1/2 brothers and sisters.

(October 18, 2012 at 11:45 am)Drich Wrote:

(October 18, 2012 at 10:57 am)Minimalist Wrote: Try to remember that the catholics insist that joseph never fucked her.

The rest of Christianity knows this not to be true. Because Christ mentions his 1/2 brothers and sisters.

Where? I've never heard anything like this before.