Biblical Contradictions

[HitchSlap]

He's completely got it wrong about the Geneoloies*. You didn't answer my question ?

*genealogies

What's your question, exactly?

 

[dougangel]

*genealogies

What's your question, exactly?

Do you understand Bart Ehrman is wrong about what he said about the genealogies ?

 

[HitchSlap]

Do you understand Bart Ehrman is wrong about what he said about the genealogies ?

He's correct.

From: The New Testament - A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. 3rd. edition, Bart D. Ehrman, 2004, Oxford University Press

pg. 121

What is striking, however is that Joseph's ties to David are traced through different lines in the two accounts. In Matthew, Joseph is a direct descendant (from father to son) of David's son Solomon; in Luke he is descended through a different line, from David's other son Nathan. The discrepancy can best be seen by moving backward through the genealogy, beginning from Joseph. Who was Joseph's father? Was is Jacob (as in Matthew) or Heli (as in Luke?). Was his paternal grandfather Matthan or Matthat? Was his paternal great-grandfather Eleazar or Levi? His great-great-grandfather Eliud or Melchi? And so forth. One of the fascinating aspects of scholarship is to see how readers have attempted to explain these differences over the years. Some have claimed, for instance, that one of the genealogies is Joseph's and the other is Mary's. The problem, of course, is that both of them explicitly trace the ancestry of Joseph (Matt 1:16, Luke 3:23).

 

[dougangel]

He's correct.

Wow. Matthews from the Father. Lukes from the Mother. They are supposed to be different. There are not two Fathers. Bart Ehrman is wrong.

 

[anonymous person]

Less myth, more legend. Like Paul Bunyan.

Paul Bunyan, King Arthur, Robin Hood, and other figures like them are considered to be legendary for the very reasons Jesus of Nazareth is not.

As C.S. Lewis put it:

"Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so." C.S. Lewis, "What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?" (1950)

 

[Tinker Grey]

Wow. Matthews from the Father. Lukes from the Mother. They are supposed to be different. There are not two Fathers. Bart Ehrman is wrong.

Why do think so?

 

[HitchSlap]

Paul Bunyan, King Arthur, Robin Hood, and other figures like them are considered to be legendary for the very reasons Jesus of Nazareth is not.

As C.S. Lewis put it:

"Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so." C.S. Lewis, "What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?" (1950)

I don't find CSL's arguments for the veracity of scripture to be very compelling. His opinions are at odds with scholars, both secular and devoted, alike.

 

[HitchSlap]

Wow. Matthews from the Father. Lukes from the Mother. They are supposed to be different. There are not two Fathers. Bart Ehrman is wrong.

I edited my post to reflect Ehrman's scholarship.

 

[dougangel]

He's correct.

From: The New Testament - A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. 3rd. edition, Bart D. Ehrman, 2004, Oxford University Press

pg. 121

What is striking, however is that Joseph's ties to David are traced through different lines in the two accounts. In Matthew, Joseph is a direct descendant (from father to son) of David's son Solomon; in Luke he is descended through a different line, from David's other son Nathan. The discrepancy can best be seen by moving backward through the genealogy, beginning from Joseph. Who was Joseph's father? Was is Jacob (as in Matthew) or Heli (as in Luke?). Was his paternal grandfather Matthan or Matthat? Was his paternal great-grandfather Eleazar or Levi? His great-great-grandfather Eliud or Melchi? And so forth. One of the fascinating aspects of scholarship is to see how readers have attempted to explain these differences over the years. Some have claimed, for instance, that one of the genealogies is Joseph's and the other is Mary's. The problem, of course, is that both of them explicitly trace the ancestry of Joseph (Matt 1:16, Luke 3:23).

Genealogy of Jesus, Jesus family tree - Complete Bible Genealogy

I gave you this website before you need to go to it. Look at the list on the top right after Joseph the linage is very different in both of them.
As I said. Joseph heads both of them because of respect for the male this is Jewish culture.

 

[dougangel]

Why do think so?

Because Luke is the mothers linage. This website shows it clearly.
Genealogy of Jesus, Jesus family tree - Complete Bible Genealogy

 

[HitchSlap]

Because Luke is the mothers linage.

How do we know this?

 

[GenemZ]

My claim is that you cannot prove your imaginary lover exists, anywhere other than in your mind... And, you just proved it to me.

Now what?

What you are doing is as bad as what a fundy does when he takes certain passages literally.

I am not here to save you, sir. Its not my job.

Just to observe.

 

[HitchSlap]

What you are doing is as bad as what a fundy does when he takes certain passages literally.

I am not here to save you, sir. Its not my job.

Just to observe.

It seems we're at an impasse then, as each of us has utilized separate epistemological methods.

Have a good day.

 

[GenemZ]

For Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded.

Actually.... the technology as it advances will be for our "disposal."

If man does not stop lying against the truth? Technology will become the mad man's last stand.

 

[dougangel]

How do we know this?

Because there is no doutb that Jacob is Josephs father not heli. The matthew lineage is definately Joseph's. There is no doutb about that. Thats fact.
The obvious only possible explaination for the other lineage in Luke is mary.

Genesis 3
The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,

“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush[b] your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

Right back in Genesis 3 the offspring of hers were to crush satans head that is Jesus.
Thats why the luke genealogies go back to eve.
Mary has claims to both david kingship and Aron preisthood through her lineage.

 

[HitchSlap]

Because there is no doutb that Jacob is Josephs father not heli. The matthew lineage is definately Joseph's. There is no doutb about that. Thats fact.
The obvious only possible explaination for the other lineage in Luke is mary.

Are you sure there no other possible explanations?

 

[HitchSlap]

Actually.... the technology as it advances will be for our "disposal."

If man does not stop lying against the truth? Technology will become the mad man's last stand.

I agree with you, lying against the truth is evil. Fortunately, there are ways to come to truth that don't rely on personal interpretations of ancient books.

 

[dougangel]

How do we know this?

Look I've given you so much evidence. You will notice on the website list.

Joseph's lineage goes back to abraham The father of the Israel nation and is concerned with the david kingship and Judah.

The mary lineage goes right back to adam and is from the aron priest hood and the david kingship.

 

[HitchSlap]

Look I've given you so much evidence. You will notice on the website list.

Joseph's lineage goes back to abraham The father of the Israel nation and is concerned with the david kingship and Judah.

The mary lineage goes right back to adam and is from the aron priest hood and the david kingship.

Stick with me here... you claimed that the only possibility for the discrepancies between Mt./Lk. had to be due to tracing Jesus' lineage through Mary. I asked you if there were any other possibilities for this discrepancy?

 

[dougangel]

Stick with me here... you claimed that the only possibility for the discrepancies between Mt./Lk. had to be due to tracing Jesus' lineage through Mary. I asked you if there were any other possibilities for this discrepancy?

If you know anything about the Old testament and the names listed in both. The mary lineage doesn't really have any doubt. But there may be less possible explanations out there. I'll be honest and say I don't know them.