(October 26, 2015 at 10:44 am)Irrational Wrote: Come on, it's pretty obvious that Luke repeats most of what Matthew said. If you don't like the word "most", replace it with "significant amount".
OK. In that case, your argument on differences in the nativity accounts aren't "very odd" and don't constitute "very clear deviation."
Quote:But this isn't up for debate anyway.You're right, it's a question of fact, which you likely checked on and found it wasn't as high as you thought.
If Luke used a very high percentage of Matthew, say 98%, then your point would deserve consideration. But, it's not nearly that high. Therefore, an explanation beyond Luke didn't see the need to repeat it is unnecessary.
Quote:What you should consider is why there is an exception for Matthew 1 and 2 in that Luke doesn't seem to be aware of the nativity account from Matthew.You haven't shown that it's a glaring exception that requires more of an explanation than already given.
Quote:And what's that excuse about lack of punctuation? Even so, no Mary in there anyway.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm
The text of the third Gospel (3:23) may be explained so as to make Heli the father of Mary: "Jesus. . .being the son (as it was supposed of Joseph) of Heli", or "Jesus. . .being the son of Joseph, as it was supposed, the son of Heli" (Lightfoot, Bengel, etc.), or again "Jesus. . .being as it was supposed the son of Joseph, who was [the son-in-law] of Heli". In these explanations the name of Mary is not mentioned explicitly, but it is implied; for Jesus is the Son of Heli through Mary.
