Posts: 8781
Threads: 26
Joined: March 15, 2010
Reputation:
29
RE: Jesus and the Number 14 cockup
April 10, 2012 at 4:59 am
(April 10, 2012 at 4:06 am)michaelsherlock Wrote: (April 10, 2012 at 3:51 am)Godschild Wrote: (April 10, 2012 at 2:38 am)michaelsherlock Wrote: (April 9, 2012 at 11:48 pm)Godschild Wrote: (April 9, 2012 at 10:36 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Interesting stuff. I had never realised that even the genealogies were so mucked up.. or that they were forcing it to be something that it most likely wasn't.
Good read, thanks for that.
There not, the two genealogies are about two different people, one being Joseph, the other Mary.
I have heard this apology before, but I thought it was now extinct.
Ok, many apologists used to claim that the list of ancestors provided by "Luke" relate to Mary and those provided by "Matthew" pertain to Joseph. So what do the texts themselves say regarding this issue?
"Luke" Chapter 3 specifically traces Jesus' ancestors through Joseph:
Luke 3:23 Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,[a] the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathiah,...Yadda, yadda, yadda!
And "Matthew" also traces Jesus' ancestors from Abraham to Joseph (see "Matthew" 1:1-16).
Where are you getting your information from?
The Bible of coarse, using the same verses you quoted. First we must take a look at the times when these were written, they would not have used a wife's name to directly trace a genealogy, that would never do in those days. If you will notice as far as we're concerned tracing back to David is the important part of the genealogy. Notice that in each account Joseph has different fathers, this is a split in the genealogy on Jesus end, on the other end the split happens with David's sons, Nathan (in Luke) and Solomon (in Matthew). There is no way that such a mistake would have gotten by anyone, these writers may have lived long ago, but that doesn't make them stupid. Even if no one had compared the two letters until the time the Bible was put together, the mistake would have been caught there and rewritten. In my opinion the early Christians had access to both letters and understood through their traditions the two genealogies represented Joseph and Mary, simple really.
If what you are saying is true, then we should expect to find such a tradition recorded in the works of the ante-nicene fathers, and as I have read all of the earliest ones and find no trace of this tradition, it seems like one of many errors, contained within the Gospels.
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, but the tradition of the Jewish nation is well documented in scripture, and the wives in that community were not held in high regard, unfortunately. I can not say I've read the genealogy of the ante-nicene, so I would not know, however you do say "fathers" as the ones who wrote their works. Sounds male dominated.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
Posts: 18
Threads: 1
Joined: December 22, 2011
Reputation:
0
RE: Jesus and the Number 14 cockup
April 10, 2012 at 5:58 am
Posts: 124
Threads: 16
Joined: April 8, 2012
Reputation:
5
RE: Jesus and the Number 14 cockup
April 10, 2012 at 5:58 am
Quote:however you do say "fathers" as the ones who wrote their works. Sounds male dominated.
I agree, however the religion of Christianity is and has always been, a male dominated one.
Posts: 3160
Threads: 56
Joined: February 14, 2012
Reputation:
39
RE: Jesus and the Number 14 cockup
April 11, 2012 at 12:19 am
Posts: 124
Threads: 16
Joined: April 8, 2012
Reputation:
5
RE: Jesus and the Number 14 cockup
April 11, 2012 at 1:12 am
(This post was last modified: April 11, 2012 at 1:13 am by michaelsherlock.)
Posts: 3160
Threads: 56
Joined: February 14, 2012
Reputation:
39
RE: Jesus and the Number 14 cockup
April 11, 2012 at 1:13 am
(This post was last modified: April 11, 2012 at 1:14 am by Reforged.)
Never!!!
Besides, spamming it all over the place is just rude.
Posts: 124
Threads: 16
Joined: April 8, 2012
Reputation:
5
RE: Jesus and the Number 14 cockup
April 11, 2012 at 1:18 am
(This post was last modified: April 11, 2012 at 1:23 am by michaelsherlock.)
Posts: 12806
Threads: 158
Joined: February 13, 2010
Reputation:
111
RE: Jesus and the Number 14 cockup
April 11, 2012 at 2:12 am
Okay, before this gets of hand, if it isn't plagiarism, it is not against the rules. Mr. Sherlock presumably has the copyright to his work and can post it here without attribution to any third party. Of course, if that is not the case, I will retract my statement.
In the interest of keeping this civil, Mr. Sherlock, please bear in mind that members are allowed to state their opinions on rule-breaking, even if they are wrong.
Those arguing with Mr. Sherlock, please bear in mind that we encourage using the report function if you believe a rule has been broken, instead of making accusations. The mods of that site are not the mods of this site. We would not base our conclusions off of theirs.
Try to play nice, fellas. 
Posts: 31905
Threads: 205
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: Jesus and the Number 14 cockup
April 11, 2012 at 2:57 am
FWIW, I ordinarily view widespread posting such as this in the same light as those that pop in to post links to their blog. Usually they aren't behaving as members of a community and don't stick around to discuss.
As michaelsherlock has certainly shown that he's here to participate and has some interesting viewpoints, I for one consider his posts welcome, if a little on the TL;DR side at times.
I suggest putting down the torches and pitchforks for now.
Posts: 124
Threads: 16
Joined: April 8, 2012
Reputation:
5
RE: Jesus and the Number 14 cockup
April 11, 2012 at 3:26 am
(April 11, 2012 at 2:12 am)Shell B Wrote: Okay, before this gets of hand, if it isn't plagiarism, it is not against the rules. Mr. Sherlock presumably has the copyright to his work and can post it here without attribution to any third party. Of course, if that is not the case, I will retract my statement.
In the interest of keeping this civil, Mr. Sherlock, please bear in mind that members are allowed to state their opinions on rule-breaking, even if they are wrong.
Those arguing with Mr. Sherlock, please bear in mind that we encourage using the report function if you believe a rule has been broken, instead of making accusations. The mods of that site are not the mods of this site. We would not base our conclusions off of theirs.
Try to play nice, fellas.
Understood. Thank you for your civility.
|
