Sinai said:
Since the bible doesn't give us any of this information about the two geneologies, where does this information come from and how do you know it is reliable?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sinai said:The geneologies in Matthew and Luke are quite important, since the Messiah was required to be from the root of Jesse (descended from David) in order to fulfill that portion of messianic prophecy. Matthew's geneology is of Jeses' legal heritage through Joseph [though not Jesus' actual father, Joseph was the legal father], while Luke traces the line through Mary. Both Mary and Joseph were descended from David. Thus, either way, that part of the prophecy was fulfilled.
Sinai said:The geneologies in Matthew and Luke are quite important, since the Messiah was required to be from the root of Jesse (descended from David) in order to fulfill that portion of messianic prophecy. Matthew's geneology is of Jeses' legal heritage through Joseph [though not Jesus' actual father, Joseph was the legal father], while Luke traces the line through Mary. Both Mary and Joseph were descended from David. Thus, either way, that part of the prophecy was fulfilled.
Sorry. I am on a trip at the moment, and am away from my Bible notes and commentaries--and will soon be away from access to computers as well. I will try to remember to get this information for you when I get back (about the end of July) if you are interested.herev said:could you please point me to a scripture in Luke's geneology (Luke 3:23-38) that tells us this is Mary's ancestry? I've heard this forever, but it doesn't say that, does it? Luke 3:23 starts the geneology with Jesus--the son of Joseph (not Mary--she's not mentioned here)
datan said:I think the universe is very old; but I don't have any clue how to go about measuring that.
Oh that is quite fun... You look at the model currently used and you see that there is an assumption that the universe is expanding, we can set a lower bound by assuming that the universe isn't accelerating. We then use this to make a scale factor of the universe, a. Next we see that da/dt*distance/(a*distance)=v/r=Hdatan said:I think the universe is very old; but I don't have any clue how to go about measuring that.
Are you sure about that Arty? It's just that in my evangelical days I was taught by a fairly conservative outfit that genealogical lists had been kept at the temple, so that until it was destroyed in 70 AD the Jews were able to check out their family trees. Which meant that those gospel writers who give up Jesus' genealogy were using reliable sources of information with which those who knew him and his family would have been familiar.artybloke said:What the writers were doing (using a common technique of the time) was connecting Christ by association to the Royal line of David, because that was the most important line from which the Messiah was said to come. There would have been no way of checking its historicity, and nobody would have bothered to check it, because it was the symbolic meaning that was important - and the fact that Christ was, like everyone else, (that, in otherwords, he was "like us in all things" except sin) a "child of Adam" was also important to establish to make his redemption possible.
The reason I was given, by the Bible Study Fellowship, was that because Luke says Joseph son of Heli and not son of Jacob as Matthew does, they assumed Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli and so Heli was Mary's dad.herev said:could you please point me to a scripture in Luke's geneology (Luke 3:23-38) that tells us this is Mary's ancestry? I've heard this forever, but it doesn't say that, does it? Luke 3:23 starts the geneology with Jesus--the son of Joseph (not Mary--she's not mentioned here)
Treasure the Questions said:Are you sure about that Arty? It's just that in my evangelical days I was taught by a fairly conservative outfit that genealogical lists had been kept at the temple, so that until it was destroyed in 70 AD the Jews were able to check out their family trees. Which meant that those gospel writers who give up Jesus' genealogy were using reliable sources of information with which those who knew him and his family would have been familiar.
Surely you're not saying those naughty people made that up, are you Arty?
Karin
Do I take it you are not aware of any? I don't think they supplied much evidence to back this up. I think it was simply presented as a fact.artybloke said:1) Is there any actual evidence that they did this? Apart from what your (fairly conservative) teachers told you?
I haven't heard of it.2) Any records would have been on papyrus scrolls, no doubt; which can last a long time, if they don't ever come in contact with a naked flame. Have any of these scrolls been found?
Point taken.Let's just say that genealogies - especially of kings - served a political purpose in the ancient world. Some of it would no doubt be quite accurate - but as the monarchy would wish us to believe there's been a king of England since Arthur (despite his probable mythical status) I wouldn't put my trust in them as factual.
Treasure the Questions said:The reason I was given, by the Bible Study Fellowship, was that because Luke says Joseph son of Heli and not son of Jacob as Matthew does, they assumed Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli and so Heli was Mary's dad.
Of course this assumes Jacob wasn't also known as Heli.
Karin
Treasure the Questions said:Are you sure about that Arty? It's just that in my evangelical days I was taught by a fairly conservative outfit that genealogical lists had been kept at the temple, so that until it was destroyed in 70 AD the Jews were able to check out their family trees. Which meant that those gospel writers who give up Jesus' genealogy were using reliable sources of information with which those who knew him and his family would have been familiar.
Surely you're not saying those naughty people made that up, are you Arty?
Karin
Probably because it would muck up their theory.gluadys said:And it assumes that Matthew's genealogy is that of Joseph. Why would it not be equally valid to assume that Luke correctly identified Joseph's father and that Jacob is his father-in-law?
Yup. It's all very logical really.gluadys said:What about the times the temple was destroyed (in whole or in part) prior to AD70.
Surely any written genealogies stored in the temple prior to Nebuchadnezzer's conquest were destroyed with the first temple.
And can we be sure any survived the take-over of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes for the Zeus cult?
Even if we accept that genealogies were stored in the temple in the first century CE---how old and how accurate could they be? Would they not have had to be reconstituted, in many cases, from oral memory?
I don't doubt that is true. I read a very interesting book called "The Owl and the Stereo: an introduction to radical Christianity", by David Osborne, which explained that quite well in respect to "history" in the Bible: it's history, but not as we know it.artybloke said:I think glaudys makes a valid point - not just about this - but about ancient history generally. Aside from the fact that there was no such thing as a "disinterested" point of view in the ancient world (the winners tended to write the accounts to make them look good), the documentary evidence for many events would have been patchy to say the least, and easily destroyed, even supposing the events were written about at the time. Chroniclers were also often poets, and paid to tell a good story. There's no reason to say that the early history of Isreal was any different from the surrounding nations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?