Biblical Contradictions

[HitchSlap]

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.

The point I'm making is, Luke never says 'this is the lineage according to Mary.' These are assumptions one has to make in order to reconcile the discrepancy. Another possible explanation, and one that requires less assumptions, is that the author of Luke made some mistakes.

 

[dougangel]

The point I'm making is, Luke never says 'this is the lineage according to Mary.' These are assumptions one has to make in order to reconcile the discrepancy. Another possible explanation, and one that requires less assumptions, is that the author of Luke made some mistakes.

If you know anything about the Old Testament scriptures those lineages are very amazing. The lineages are miracles about OT theology. That website explains it if you take the time to read it.

 

[anonymous person]

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.

Arguments against Jesus of Nazareth being a legend =/= arguments for the veracity of scripture.

 

[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).

""The problem, of course, is that both of them explicitly trace the ancestry of Joseph""
Bart D. Ehrman, 2004, Oxford University Press

Thats just not True. Theres 41 in the Matthew list and 77 in the luke list and only a handfull that are the same.

 

[HitchSlap]

If you know anything about the Old Testament scriptures those lineages are very amazing. The lineages are miracles about OT theology. That website explains it if you take the time to read it.

Yes, I read your site, and they make the same assumptions as you.

I am compelled to accept the most parsimonious explanation.

 

[Tinker Grey]

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

That's what that website says. Why should I believe that? Luke certainly seems to indicate that it is Joseph's lineage.

 

[HitchSlap]

""The problem, of course, is that both of them explicitly trace the ancestry of Joseph""
Bart D. Ehrman, 2004, Oxford University Press

Thats just not True. Theres 41 in the Matthew list and 77 in the luke list and only a handfull that are the same.

I think you’re starting to get it.

 

[dougangel]

I think you’re starting to get it.

Err what ?
There's more differences in the lineages than being the same so there not inexplicpably the same.
Mary's father Heli is in the luke list.

 

[HitchSlap]

Err what ?
There's more differences in the lineages than being the same so there not inexplicpably the same.
Mary's father Heli is in the luke list.

Exactly.

 

[dougangel]

Exactly.

luke is mary's lineage. That guy is wrong. End of story.

 

[anonymous person]

Exactly.

If the geneaologies were identical you'd have people complaining about that too. If there were no geneaologies, you'd have people arguing that they shouldn't have been left out. If the geneaologies were listed in reverse order you'd have people arguing that they should have been listed the other way.

HitchSlap, if you wanted to follow Jesus and have Him to be Lord of your life, these two geneaologies being what they are wouldn't stop you. I promise you they wouldn't stop you from repenting and renouncing your sins and trusting in Christ to forgive you of them.

Truth of the matter is that we don't even need the gospels to know about Jesus' life, death, burial, and empty tomb. These are attested in other earlier sources and some of the events are attested to in other sources outside of the bible!!

You're like the gentleman walking through the woods who is always looking down at his feet instead of the big picture out in front of him. You keep tripping over a few branches here and there and are so focused on these minutiae like crowing chickens and divergent geneaologies that you're unable to see the forest which lay before you in all of its glory.

 

[HitchSlap]

If the geneaologies were identical you'd have people complaining about that too. If there were no geneaologies, you'd have people arguing that they shouldn't have been left out. If the geneaologies were listed in reverse order you'd have people arguing that they should have been listed the other way.

HitchSlap, if you wanted to follow Jesus and have Him to be Lord of your life, these two geneaologies being what they are wouldn't stop you. I promise you they wouldn't stop you from repenting and renouncing your sins and trusting in Christ to forgive you of them.

Truth of the matter is that we don't even need the gospels to know about Jesus' life, death, burial, and empty tomb. These are attested in other earlier sources and some of the events are attested to in other sources outside of the bible!!

You're like the gentleman walking through the woods who is always looking down at his feet instead of the big picture out in front of him. You keep tripping over a few branches here and there and are so focused on these minutiae like crowing chickens and divergent geneaologies that you're unable to see the forest which lay before you in all of its glory.

This is nothing but projection.

 

[HitchSlap]

luke is mary's lineage. That guy is wrong. End of story.

Or, more likely, it’s they’re contradictory lists, and it became church dogma that it was Mary’s lineage.
End of story.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Or, more likely, it’s they’re contradictory lists, and it became church dogma that it was Mary’s lineage.
End of story.

hahaha - never ending humor !

 

[HitchSlap]

hahaha - never ending humor !

Right?!

 

[dougangel]

Or, more likely, it’s they’re contradictory lists, and it became church dogma that it was Mary’s lineage.
End of story.

The whole thing is that if you know anything about the subject and about the names it is a very considered list. It's no accident.

The matthew, Joseph list has to do with the Kingship of Jesus and goes back abraham the father of the Israelite nation.

The luke, mary list goes right back to adam-God because she is the natural mother. This has to do with the many prophecies in the OT and Jesus having legitimate lineage to Kingship and priesthood of the Israelite nation.

They both share comon ancestry till David. Then mary branches off at david with nathan to heli.
Joseph is at the head of both lists because of Jewish woman cultural beliefs. They are very authentic lists for the time they were written.

 

[HitchSlap]

This is an option, I agree.

The whole thing is that if you know anything about the subject and about the names it is a very considered list. It's no accident.

The matthew, Joseph list has to do with the Kingship of Jesus and goes back abraham the father of the Israelite nation.

The luke, mary list goes right back to adam-God because she is the natural mother. This has to do with the many prophecies in the OT and Jesus having legitimate lineage to Kingship and priesthood of the Israelite nation.

They both share comon ancestry till David. Then mary branches off at david with nathan to heli.
Joseph is at the head of both lists because of Jewish woman cultural beliefs. They are very authentic lists for the time they were written.

 

[Silmarien]

The point I'm making is, Luke never says 'this is the lineage according to Mary.' These are assumptions one has to make in order to reconcile the discrepancy. Another possible explanation, and one that requires less assumptions, is that the author of Luke made some mistakes.

Eh, my favorite explanation for the genealogies is that they're both literary devices employed by the authors of the two Gospels to summarize the Old Testament and frame their own renditions of the story in a particular way. People have been arguing about why Matthew chose to include the four women he did (Ruth, Tamar, Rachab, and Bathsheba) for ages.

Let's not forget aspects of ancient Jewish culture like Midrash and its creative interpretations. There are options out there besides the genealogies being historical records and them being mistakes.

 

[dougangel]

Eh, my favorite explanation for the genealogies is that they're both literary devices employed by the authors of the two Gospels to summarize the Old Testament and frame their own renditions of the story in a particular way. People have been arguing about why Matthew chose to include the four women he did (Ruth, Tamar, Rachab, and Bathsheba) for ages.

Let's not forget aspects of ancient Jewish culture like Midrash and its creative interpretations. There are options out there besides the genealogies being historical records and them being mistakes.

Congradulations. That is a more informed criticism. Than saying they were random mistakes.

 

[dougangel]

Eh, my favorite explanation for the genealogies is that they're both literary devices employed by the authors of the two Gospels to summarize the Old Testament and frame their own renditions of the story in a particular way. People have been arguing about why Matthew chose to include the four women he did (Ruth, Tamar, Rachab, and Bathsheba) for ages.

Let's not forget aspects of ancient Jewish culture like Midrash and its creative interpretations. There are options out there besides the genealogies being historical records and them being mistakes.

Here is a good site on that.
Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, & Mary – Imperfect on Purpose

Lineage was very important back then for land ownage, land rights and of the 12 tribes they were from. Thats why families had lists. It was very important in Jewish traditions and they learned there lists.

On the Matthew fathers lines it really doesn't matter if there are woman or not even if that is unusaul. There is also a curse. I guess Matthew included woman in the lineage because thats the correct Joseph to David lineage for various reasons. And those woman have stories in the OT. Ruth has a whole book.

The Matthew Joseph Kingship line. Joseph isn't the natural father. Jesus gets kingship on that line by abdoption but he doesn't share in the curses.