RE: Proof of Christianity
August 13, 2013 at 3:34 am
(This post was last modified: August 13, 2013 at 3:37 am by Tea Earl Grey Hot.)
All I see is this:
"Mary drew her line, the blood line, through Heli from Joanna (No. 59), the second son of Shelomith.
And thus the Lord Jesus received the two guarantees of right to the throne of David: the blood line through his mother directly, and the title through his adopting father, Joseph. With his death and resurrection these two rights became locked for ever in his Person and cannot be passed on to, or henceforth claimed by, any other man."
And this
"On the other hand, Luke, as a physician, focuses on the humanity of Jesus and presents Him as the Son of Man. Luke traces the blood line from Adam (the first Man) through to David -- and his genealogy from Abraham through David is identical to Matthew's. But then after David, Luke departs from the path taken by Matthew and traces the family tree through another son of David (the second surviving son of Bathsheba), Nathan, down through Heli, the father of Mary, the mother of Jesus (4)."
"Heli, Mary's father, apparently had no sons, and Mary married within the tribe of Judah. "
"Apparently"? According to Luke? More assertions.
The article asserts that Heli is Mary's father. There's no argument given why this is so when the text says otherwise. The rest of the article just tries to read the OT assuming that Luke represents the mother's line. No where in the article does it care to explain why it naturally reads as indicating that Jospeh was the son of Heli if it's really Mary who is Heli's daughter.
So two or more contradictory interpretations can be correct at the same time?
"Mary drew her line, the blood line, through Heli from Joanna (No. 59), the second son of Shelomith.
And thus the Lord Jesus received the two guarantees of right to the throne of David: the blood line through his mother directly, and the title through his adopting father, Joseph. With his death and resurrection these two rights became locked for ever in his Person and cannot be passed on to, or henceforth claimed by, any other man."
And this
"On the other hand, Luke, as a physician, focuses on the humanity of Jesus and presents Him as the Son of Man. Luke traces the blood line from Adam (the first Man) through to David -- and his genealogy from Abraham through David is identical to Matthew's. But then after David, Luke departs from the path taken by Matthew and traces the family tree through another son of David (the second surviving son of Bathsheba), Nathan, down through Heli, the father of Mary, the mother of Jesus (4)."
"Heli, Mary's father, apparently had no sons, and Mary married within the tribe of Judah. "
"Apparently"? According to Luke? More assertions.
The article asserts that Heli is Mary's father. There's no argument given why this is so when the text says otherwise. The rest of the article just tries to read the OT assuming that Luke represents the mother's line. No where in the article does it care to explain why it naturally reads as indicating that Jospeh was the son of Heli if it's really Mary who is Heli's daughter.
(August 13, 2013 at 3:07 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Why not? Pretty similar has already been done.
So two or more contradictory interpretations can be correct at the same time?
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
