Jesus Fulfilled The Sacrificial System

[Steve Petersen]

No contradiction. Joseph was descendant from Solomon, Mary was descendant from Nathan, making both Solomon and Nathan ancestors to Jesus.

This assumes that one of the contradictory genealogies in the Gospels is Mary's and not Josephs. An early church writer gave an alternate explanation: one of the genealogies is due to a Leverite marriage in Jesus ancestry.

 

[Shek]

No contradiction. Joseph was descendant from Solomon, Mary was descendant from Nathan, making both Solomon and Nathan ancestors to Jesus.

Then that would mean that Jesus isn't divine and Joseph was the father.

 

[HypnoToad]

Then that would mean that Jesus isn't divine and Joseph was the Father.

Hardly. Joseph's ancestry is a legal ancestry, not a biological one.

 

[Shek]

Hardly. Joseph's ancestry is a legal ancestry, not a biological one.

Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia

"One common explanation for the divergence is that Matthew is recording the actual legal genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, according to Jewish custom, whereas Luke, writing for a Gentile audience, gives the actual biological genealogy of Jesus through Mary.[15] This argument is problematic, however, because both trace their genealogy through Joseph."

 

[HypnoToad]

Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia

"One common explanation for the divergence is that Matthew is recording the actual legal genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, according to Jewish custom, whereas Luke, writing for a Gentile audience, gives the actual biological genealogy of Jesus through Mary.[15] This argument is problematic, however, because both trace their genealogy through Joseph."

A. Get a better source than wikipedia.

B. Luke doesn't actually say it was Joseph's lineage. Notice he points out that Joseph was just the "supposed" father (ch.3, v.23). Joseph is Heli's son by marriage. By this point in the Gospel, Luke has already pointed out the virgin birth, so it makes sense that he'd trace the line through Mary instead of Joseph. Some info here: Lesson 14: The Genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:23-38)

 

[Shek]

A. Get a better source than wikipedia.

B. Luke doesn't actually say it was Joseph's lineage. Notice he points out that Joseph was just the "supposed" father (ch.3, v.23). Joseph is Heli's son by marriage. By this point in the Gospel, Luke has already pointed out the virgin birth, so it makes sense that he'd trace the line through Mary instead of Joseph. Some info here: Lesson 14: The Genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:23-38)

You might want to actually read your own source....

"The oldest attempt at resolving the problems comes from Julius Africanus (ca. A.D. 225), who claimed to have received his information from the descendants of James, the brother of Jesus."

"Africanus admits that this theory is uncorroborated, but contends that it is worthy of belief."

So now you want to just negate what the bible says and go off road and believe a claim written by an Israeli historian ....200 years later?

 

[HypnoToad]

You might want to actually read your own source....

"The oldest attempt at resolving the problems comes from Julius Africanus (ca. A.D. 225), who claimed to have received his information from the descendants of James, the brother of Jesus."

So now you want to just negate what the bible says and go off road and believe a claim written by an Israeli historian ....200 years later?

Might want to actually read it? Yeah, if that snippet is all you got from that article, then it's YOU who needs to actually read it. Africanus suggests a different method entirely to reconcile them, so he doesn't even have anything to do with what I'm talking about.

 

[Shek]

Might want to actually read it? Yeah, if that snippet is all you got from that article, then it's YOU who needs to actually read it. Africanus suggests a different method entirely to reconcile them, so he doesn't even have anything to do with what I'm talking about.

Author of the article...

"I wish I could simply dwell on that theme alone, but there are a number of difficult problems raised by this text that we need to consider. After looking at these problems, we will look at some conclusions we can be sure of. Then we will consider some practical lessons we can apply."

He openly admits that the text is NOT accurate and puts forward theories.

"The simplest approach argues that Jacob (Joseph’s father in Matt. 1:15) was childless and so Eli (Joseph’s father in Luke 3:23), who was Joseph’s actual father, became the heir through levirate marriage to Jacob’s widow. Machen argues that Jacob and Eli were brothers, so that when Jacob died childless, his nephew, Joseph, became the heir. There are other plausible variations of this approach, but we cannot prove any view, including the following one, since we lack the necessary information."

His conclusion throws out Matthew and opts for Luke....how convenient for him.

That's the whole point; CONTRADICTIONS.

 

[HypnoToad]

Author of the article...

"I wish I could simply dwell on that theme alone, but there are a number of difficult problems raised by this text that we need to consider. After looking at these problems, we will look at some conclusions we can be sure of. Then we will consider some practical lessons we can apply."

He openly admits that the text is NOT accurate and puts forward theories.

Wrong. A text having "problems" does NOT mean "it is not accurate".

If that's the level of your reading comprehension, I'm afraid trying to continue is pointless, as it will simply go over your head.

"The simplest approach argues that Jacob (Joseph’s father in Matt. 1:15) was childless and so Eli (Joseph’s father in Luke 3:23), who was Joseph’s actual father, became the heir through levirate marriage to Jacob’s widow. Machen argues that Jacob and Eli were brothers, so that when Jacob died childless, his nephew, Joseph, became the heir. There are other plausible variations of this approach, but we cannot prove any view, including the following one, since we lack the necessary information."
That's the whole point; CONTRADICTIONS.

Once again, you quote a completely different argument than the one I presented, further supporting my conclusion that your level of reading comprehension prohibits further meaningful discussion.

 

[Shek]

Once again, you quote a completely different argument than the one I presented

I guess that you need to select your sources more carefully then, one's that don't prove your opponent's point.

This assumes that one of the contradictory genealogies in the Gospels is Mary's and not Josephs. An early church writer gave an alternate explanation: one of the genealogies is due to a Leverite marriage in Jesus ancestry.

Steve's post is the very same as the source you provided and the one I quoted.

 

[Steve Petersen]

A. Get a better source than wikipedia.

B. Luke doesn't actually say it was Joseph's lineage. Notice he points out that Joseph was just the "supposed" father (ch.3, v.23). Joseph is Heli's son by marriage. By this point in the Gospel, Luke has already pointed out the virgin birth, so it makes sense that he'd trace the line through Mary instead of Joseph. Some info here: Lesson 14: The Genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:23-38)

Interesting aside: The Greek under 'supposed' in the verse you mentioned has legal overtones. It is almost as if Joseph adopted Jesus.

 

[Ron Gurley]

Mary's BLOOD line was through David. Luke 2
Jacob's LEGAL line: in Matthew's version

 

[ToBeLoved]

Interesting aside: The Greek under 'supposed' in the verse you mentioned has legal overtones. It is almost as if Joseph adopted Jesus.

If they got married and assumed to be Joseph’s wouldn’t he be the default father by law.