[quote='teaearlgreyhot' pid='351093' dateline='1350630326']
[quote='Drich' pid='351090' dateline='1350629463']
[quote]Assertion: it would have not made sense because of his culture.[/quote]Fact. Because the Jews were commznded to keep their rules and regulations to themselves. Theolopus was not a Jew therefore would have no direct knoweledge of their laws, practices or conviction.
[quote]Assumption: he needed to understand how Jesus was literally the son of David.[/quote]Fact because in order to be the messiah He must be a desendant of David.
[quote]Assumption: Jesus was thought to be the literal son of David in synoptic gospels.[/quote]where did you see this?
[quote]Give me something like "The verse in Luke should be understood to be tracing through Mary's line and not Josephs because of A, B, C etc."[/quote]Ive done this 3 or more times and you have ignored what was written.
[quote]Or they both represent two different guesses (or traditions) by the writers as to Jesus' ancestry through the father, which is what it naturally reads as.[/quote]The Jews were fanatic record keepers, there would have been no question as to who's geneology was being used.
Again which brings me back to point 4 in my last post to you. If Mat and Luke were both just using a public document to denote the linage of Christ then how does this translate into a biblical error? You said as much yourself in your last statement.
[quote]"Or they both represent two different guesses (or traditions)" [/quote] http://www.biblediscovered.com/new-testa...genealogy/
This is talking about the destruction of the geneological record but this rabbi can still trace his ancestory back to biblical times. This is an on going tradition, one that ALL Jews were bound to in that day. So the further back you go the more accurate and inclusive the list gets.
[quote='Drich' pid='351090' dateline='1350629463']
[quote]Assertion: it would have not made sense because of his culture.[/quote]Fact. Because the Jews were commznded to keep their rules and regulations to themselves. Theolopus was not a Jew therefore would have no direct knoweledge of their laws, practices or conviction.
[quote]Assumption: he needed to understand how Jesus was literally the son of David.[/quote]Fact because in order to be the messiah He must be a desendant of David.
[quote]Assumption: Jesus was thought to be the literal son of David in synoptic gospels.[/quote]where did you see this?
[quote]Give me something like "The verse in Luke should be understood to be tracing through Mary's line and not Josephs because of A, B, C etc."[/quote]Ive done this 3 or more times and you have ignored what was written.
[quote]Or they both represent two different guesses (or traditions) by the writers as to Jesus' ancestry through the father, which is what it naturally reads as.[/quote]The Jews were fanatic record keepers, there would have been no question as to who's geneology was being used.
Again which brings me back to point 4 in my last post to you. If Mat and Luke were both just using a public document to denote the linage of Christ then how does this translate into a biblical error? You said as much yourself in your last statement.
[quote]"Or they both represent two different guesses (or traditions)" [/quote] http://www.biblediscovered.com/new-testa...genealogy/
This is talking about the destruction of the geneological record but this rabbi can still trace his ancestory back to biblical times. This is an on going tradition, one that ALL Jews were bound to in that day. So the further back you go the more accurate and inclusive the list gets.
