I think it would be interesting to see just how big the field of religious apologetics is. I know science has its fair share, but Christianity, for instance, is constantly changing their tune to support their latest interpretation of a 2000 year old book.

(August 12, 2013 at 5:25 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I'm incorrect how?

I never say it didn't say Joseph. I said that the text supports Jesus lineage and right to qualify as messiah, as Nora denied. One is the line of Joseph, the other Mary. That much is Crystal clear.

Matthew 1:16
[16] and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.


Let's ponder on this verse. It says that Joseph was the son of Jacob. It traced a lineage alway to Jacob. Now, if it traced the lineage down to Jacob and then it says that Joseph was Jacob's son, that means that Joseph is part of the lineage thus its Joseph lineage. It only mentions Mary being the husband of Joseph.

Luke 3:23-24
[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 Jan'na-i, the son of Joseph,

and etc.

This says too that Jesus was "the son of Joseph" and then immediately says that Joseph was "...the son of Heli" and then continues on the genealogy in backwards order.

It says nothing about this being Mary's genealogy. No mention of Mary is made whatsoever in this genealogy.

The reason why they're different is probably because one or more is made up.

Quote:They can't be the same, because one fooled females and the other males. Look at the link I provided, it's all explained.

Yes, it's plain to everyone that they're not the same genealogy but both of them explicitly state to be the genealogy of Joseph. One or both must be incorrect.

Quote:It's called the line of Jesus through Joseph because that's just the way these things are referred to. Why is Mary's line in Luke full of females and Matthews names male?

You're asserting the thing to be proved. It's not plain at all that Luke's genealogy is through Mary especially when the name Mary isn't mentioned at all in the entire chapter. And what makes you think that because of the fact that Luke's genealogy mentions some women that therefore this must be Mary's line?

Quote:I never say it didn't say Joseph. I said that the text supports Jesus lineage and right to qualify as messiah, as Nora denied. One is the line of Joseph, the other Mary. That much is Crystal clear.

You are wrong, frods.

Apologists have been twisting their nuts into pretzels for ages trying to reconcile the differences between the two accounts and almost always fail to note that you clowns claim that "god" was the one who fucked "mary," not "joseph". I realize this is inconvenient but facts are facts.

Leaving aside that each account is preposterous on its own it is readily apparent that they contradict each other.

He's going to say you're copping out too, Min. fr0d0 may act cool sometimes, but I feel he's gone into Troll mode on this one.

How many near east matrilineal lineages are known from this era? (Honest question.)

(August 12, 2013 at 10:01 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote: How many near east matrilineal lineages are known from this era? (Honest question.)

Derr, Luke...derr derrr derrrrr

(August 12, 2013 at 10:02 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote:

(August 12, 2013 at 10:01 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote: How many near east matrilineal lineages are known from this era? (Honest question.)

Derr, Luke...derr derrr derrrrr

I should have clarified...'other than in the bible'.

Like...common as hen's teeth?

Well, apparently some Catholics can trace the Holy Mother's lineage all the way back to Eve. In fact, some even go so far to say that for Mary to have an immaculate conception, her mother also had to be without sin, which means no sex either. And so on. And so on. Which means Eve didn't have sex. I can't make this shit up.

Meh. I think(without confirmation) a matrilineal lineage makes zero sense...other than as apologetic tripe. I thought common practice was to follow the father's line. (Possibly evidenced by qualifiers such as Ben, Bar, and Ibn even...followed by a father's name). The Karaite Jews still follow patrilineal descent...which I assumed a nod to tradition. Keeping track of a mother's bloodline seems unlikely...unless there is evidence to the contrary. Until then, I chalk up the biblical Jesus lineages to mere wishful prophecy fulfilling.

Because that's most likely what it is.