Christians - even the Bible says that Jesus was not God so why do you say he was ?

[Brian37]

The same bad logic applies to all religious writings. It assumes first then seeks to justify after the naked assertion is made.

[jenny1972]

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"

ok so your saying that Marys father was Heli? and heli was a descendent of David right?

[GrandizerII]

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.

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.

[John V]

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.

It's not intended to account for differences. Different authors account for differences. As noted, what needs an explanation is the similarities.

[Kingpin]

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"

ok so your saying that Marys father was Heli? and heli was a descendent of David right?

I don't have the energy anymore.  Just google.  Here's a nice write up on the confusion and debate:

http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.c...jesus.html

[jenny1972]

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

[GrandizerII]

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.

As noted, what needs an explanation is the similarities.

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

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.

[GrandizerII]

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.

[robvalue]

You'd think they could make an exception to their genealogy rules for the mother of god.

[Brian37]

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.