Proof of Christianity

[fr0d0]

Nora: http://www.ldolphin.org/2adams.html

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Nora: http://www.ldolphin.org/2adams.html

That's incorrect. Mary's genealogy wasn't included. It was Joseph's in both books and one or both got his genealogy wrong.

[fr0d0]

Yes they say different things teg. one, Matthew is based upon the father's line. Luke is based upon the mother's. I think it's Jewish tradition that the blood line goes through the females. That would explain the different emphasis.

edit

Yes it's the Jews: http://www.google.com/m?q=jewish+bloodli...hannel=new

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Yes they say different things teg. one, Matthew is based upon the father's line. Luke is based upon the mother's. I think it's Jewish tradition that the blood line goes through the females. That would explain the different emphasis.

You got it backwards. They trace through the father and it explicitly says it's traced through Joseph in both books.

[fr0d0]

You're demonstrably wrong teg. See my last edit.

[NoraBrimstone]

So, fr0d0. You, a Christian, are saying that the Bible is wrong and those links you provided are more reliable than the book itself? Is that what is actually happening here?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

You're demonstrably wrong teg. See my last edit.

I'll have to review that.

In any case, it says the line of Joseph in both books so you're still incorrect.

[NoraBrimstone]

Not to mention that Joseph isn't supposed to be Jesus's father anyway.

Nor the fact that all the names on the "female line" are men's names.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Not to mention that Joseph isn't supposed to be Jesus's father anyway.

Nor the fact that all the names on the "female line" are men's names.

There are some scholars who think that in the earliest Gospels, the virgin birth story may have been a later reinterpretation of the church and that Joseph was originally understood as being Jesus' literal father.

[Crossless2.0]

Nor the fact that all the names on the "female line" are men's names.

Yeah, odd isn't it? It's almost like this matrilineal argument is just a pathetic post hoc rationalization to paper over an embarrassing discrepancy.

But of course, we know that never happens in scriptural interpretation.

I suppose next we'll hear about how lines of descent were traced through the mother but it was customary to omit women's names from the list. Or, we'll be told that Heli was really Mary's father and Joseph was his son-in-law or some such tripe.

In any case, I find it peculiar that the author of Matthew, who among the Gospel writers was most anxiously concerned to demonstrate Jesus's messianic bona fides, would so clumsily have used the patriarchal line of descent if it was truly normative back then to have used the mother's line.

Regardless, the point we have both made stands. None of it matters if Joseph was not Jesus's daddy, a point fr0d0 understandably wishes to sidestep.

So I'll see his bonus points for my ignorance and raise him two more for credulity and a lack of intellectual integrity.