The genealogy of Jesus was very important to prove Jesus was the Messiah and descendant of David. Yet there are two very different genealogies given in the Bible. Many Christians argue that one of the genealogies is actually of Mary. But the texts are very specific that both are the bloodline of Joseph. This brings up another huge issue that Joseph wasn’t even the “blood” father of this “begotten” child. Since God impregnated Mary, the two conflicting bloodlines prove nothing.
But for now, I’ll stick with the flawed genealogy of Joseph. The part I find most baffling is the two authors have different names for Joseph’s father. They didn’t even get the first generation right.
A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
… and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.Matthew 1:1-16
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat.
Luke 3:23-24
Tags: God, Bible, Jesus, Conflicting, False, Flawed, Inconsistent, Genealogy, Mary, Bloodline, David, Begotten
June 30, 2009 at 7:54 am |
Ah yes, Joseph the Cuckold.
June 30, 2009 at 11:14 am |
You give me a chuckle daily. Thanks!
June 30, 2009 at 8:59 am |
I thought that Christians were not supposed to be delving into genealogies.
Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.
Oh well. Another day, another contradiction.
June 30, 2009 at 9:28 am |
Funny. I missed that verse.
This argument and quarrel was useful at the time to convince skeptical Jews. For the same reason they invented the story of Jesus’ birth so that he could be born in Bethlehem to fulfill prophesy. I always found it funny that the birth story of Christ wasn’t important enough to include in the first written Gospel of Mark. Invented genealogies, made up stories, whatever it takes to spread a religion.
June 30, 2009 at 11:44 am |
Mark is thought by scholars to represent the experiences of Peter, who dictated his memoirs to John-Mark and this became the gospel. Mark seems to have the kind of language you would expect from an eyewitness: “Jesus was sleeping in the back of the boat”, or “Jesus walked ahead of the crowd”.
Anyway, Peter seems particular to record only what he himself observed – so we don’t get any backstory or family history.
June 30, 2009 at 9:51 am |
It’s a sure giveaway that Matthew is going to spread some BS when he starts out, “He did X in order to fulfil the prophesy…“
June 30, 2009 at 11:17 am |
OK kids. Lets straighten out a Few Massive errors here. Only been floaring around a bout 1/20th of the time Since Christ:
(1) God had no Earthly fatherhood, Only God Himself. The earthly geneology of Christ has Zero to do with him being God. The biblical Geology is that if Mary, His eathly Mother.
(2) The Fringe groupies are barelly Christian. They are Fringe, almost weirdo’s, with little of the Lord’s Teaching, a Lot of Their particular ‘preacher’, Using God/Christ for a living/following.
(3) The Real, FULL Christians, following Christ’s teachings, which are Ideal: Help Others, Never yourself…….If Understood……….The Only Full Christians are the 75% Traditional Churched Christians, almost all the Apostolic Eastern, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic, which are 70% of all Christians, and are the Main Ones Unspun.
June 30, 2009 at 11:38 am |
I love it when Christians feud over which of them are the “true” Christians.
June 30, 2009 at 12:20 pm |
If it is the genealogy of Mary, why is it referred to as the genealogy of Joseph in both cases? I mention it in the post because it is an extremely common and extremely weak argument used by Christians for 2,000 years.
But you’re right, it has zero to do with him being god. That must be why it is repeated two times in the Bible for emphasis.
Don’t even start with the “real” vs. “fake” Christian argument. There are hundreds of flavors of Christianity, but everyone is convinced their version is the right one.
June 30, 2009 at 2:37 pm |
I don’t think God’s much of a copy editor, that’s the problem.
June 30, 2009 at 5:50 pm |
Why do you say it is Mary’s geology? What does the study of rocks have to do with these verses? You might have meant genealogy so am still going to ask how can you be sure it is Mary’s? As I understand in most ancient societies the only genealogy that matter was the fathers. If this isn’t the case you need to show us. If there is no genealogy for jesus then how can he be the messiah as the gospels claim he is?
June 30, 2009 at 11:23 am |
I’ve never understood the need to trace his lineage at all. Whether Jesus was myth or man, immaculately conceived or the product of some secret affair…his teachings, the words that are credited to him about loving one another, of having a heart so astoundingly open…that’s what touches me.
This is the only blog that I return to just to watch thoughts fly. You all are very articulate. This should be an interesting day!
June 30, 2009 at 11:37 am |
I’ve never understood the need to trace his lineage at all.
Because there’s some Old Testament line which has been interpreted as a prophesy that the messiah will be a descendant of David.
June 30, 2009 at 12:31 pm |
Jeremiah 23:5 is one such verse.
Note that one of the few features the two genealogies have in common is descendancy from David.
June 30, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Ah so. Not trying to be dense here, but I still don’t get it. Even if he wasn’t the messiah to which the old testament refers…why does that validate or invalidate who Jesus was and what he did with his life?
Would the bible need to be rewritten should his lineage be proven false? Would Christianity in all of its forms and every other religion that tips their hat to Jesus crumble and have to build themselves anew?
June 30, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Forrester, the problem is that you can’t just take the Old Testament without the New Testament. Jesus, himself, even mentions that the Old Testament is incredibly important.
His claim to messiah-hood is the crux of this article. You have to remember that we’re dealing with a religion that revolves around a person who claims to have fulfilled Old Testament prophecy. That’s why Jesus is supposed to be such a big deal, because His coming was purportedly the consummation of Old Testament prophecy.
If that’s not the case, and Jesus wasn’t the Old Testament messiah, then the Old Testament is entirely irrelevant and has no bearing on Christianity. That’s what links the two.
As for his lineage being proven false, the Bible IS the only record of the lineage of Jesus. The Bible is the only place where Jesus is mentioned from supposedly first-hand accounts. If not for the Bible as the accounts of the authors, nobody would know Jesus existed.
Therefore, it’s not possible to prove these genealogies wrong. Further, a major point of Christian theology is that the Bible is inerrant. This is critical as the Bible is not only the only reference to Jesus, but the Bible is the only thing saying that it is handed down by God.
When there are two accounts of the exact same thing that blatantly contradict each other, that’s a fundamental crack in the Bible’s inerrancy, which completely undermines its authority as a divinely inspired work. If the Bible isn’t God’s Word, then it’s just a book written by bigots, slave-owners, and murderers.
That’s not exactly authoritative nor relevant in this day and age.
June 30, 2009 at 4:16 pm
@ Janus Grayden
“Further, a major point of Christian theology is that the Bible is inerrant.”
This is not the case for all Christians. I am a Lutheran and we believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. But this does not mean that it has to be entirely factual. The Bible is a collection of literature: folk tales, history, poetry, letters, revelations etc and we strive to understand each book as it was intended for its audience. A folk tale like the creation story was not intended to be factual so why should we invest it with “inerrancy”?
There was a heresy in the early 2nd century church – Marcionism – that actually did away with the Old Testament as irrelevent to the life of Jesus Christ. But the wider church decided that the story of Jesus could not be extracted faithfully from his historical context within the OT Hebrew tradition.
“When there are two accounts of the exact same thing that blatantly contradict each other, that’s a fundamental crack in the Bible’s inerrancy, which completely undermines its authority as a divinely inspired work.”
I agree that conflicts may undermine the inerrancy of the Bible, but how and why does that preclude divine authorship? Lutherans believe that God put in the Bible exactly what he wants to say to us – inconsistencies and all. Are you saying he can’t do that?
June 30, 2009 at 4:40 pm
There’s a difference between not being factual and being glaringly wrong on certain points.
If you’re serious in that you only follow the good teachings from the Bible, then why are you stuck on the fact that Jesus even existed? You admit that the Bible could be wrong in places, so why not about Jesus? The Bible is really the only place Jesus is mentioned first hand, so, if it’s not a reliable source of information, why trust it for that, too?
Additionally, how can God be perfect if the ONLY way for man to get to know Him is through a book that is riddled with inaccuracies, monstrosities, and outright contradictions?
If it’s the moral teachings, then why aren’t you a Confucianist? Their book is based on ethics, too, and they don’t even try to pretend there’s a god and try to pass mythology off as fact. They never even prescribe marriage as an acceptable punishment for rape. Even then, they also don’t say that there’s an eternal punishment for not following the teachings. It’s basically everything you’re saying, but without the horrifying or nonfactual parts of the Bible.
It’s quite a stretch to ask me why I’m not taking the Bible’s word for it when you, yourself, agree that it’s flawed. That pretty much speaks for itself. So, I think the bigger question is. Why, when faced with the fact that the Bible really isn’t all that amazing and perfect, and that nothing in it may actually be true, do you actually believe in God, the Biblical God and the Biblical Jesus, no less?
I seem to have to mention this even though I think it should be obvious, but it’s a fair question. There’s no malice or intent to convert involved. I would like a reasonable justification for why people are allowed to pick and choose what they want from the Bible and hold their particular view as higher than someone else’s. That hardly sounds productive, especially for an omniscient, omnipotent God.
June 30, 2009 at 5:20 pm
@ Janus Grayden
“Additionally, how can God be perfect if the ONLY way for man to get to know Him is through a book that is riddled with inaccuracies, monstrosities, and outright contradictions?”
Because factual accuracy is not important to a belief based on faith. I think God wants us to come to him through faith, not science and reason. Therefore it is acceptance in the face of inaccuracies that is the mark of the true believer.
Why does God use faith instead of reason to disclose himself to humanity? Because everyone can believe, but no all can understand. I think humans act on faith, not facts. Even rational humans do this: not everyone can possibly do all the fact-checking required to make a rational decision based only on personal investigation.
“It’s quite a stretch to ask me why I’m not taking the Bible’s word for it when you, yourself, agree that it’s flawed.”
I can’t ask a rationalist to accept the Bible for exactly the reasons you cite. I acknowledge that the Bible is not always factual, but I would not say that this constitutes a flaw.
It all goes back to rationalism vs faith. You expect truth to be ascertained only through science and logic. The Christian believes that truth can be revealed independently from science in the Bible.
So without malice I merely point out that all the fine arguments against the Bible based on its lack of factual accuracy miss the point. At least to non-fundamentalists.
I would argue that the fundamentalists who assert that the Bible is “inerrant” or factually correct are simply mistaken. Worse, this is bad theology because if everything in the Bible is provable fact, then faith means nothing. And this is completely un-Christian.
June 30, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Be that as it may, I’m not going to side with the people who are convinced beyond all reason that anyone who disagrees with their religion is going to hell.
Besides, saying that God wants unconditional respect for doing absolutely nothing in my life seems pretty silly. Seeing as how I’ve found I can feel perfectly content, fulfilled, and purposeful without God, it kind of kills the whole point. There’s also the added benefit of not feeling like a failure simply for having been born and not feeling like people I know and care about who were never Christian are going to hell to suffer for all eternity. Talk about a complete and total lack of mercy. By its very definition, eternal punishment is the complete opposite of mercy and forgiveness. Especially when people are guilty until proven innocent in God’s eyes.
So, you having faith is all well and good. After hearing your rationale, it really doesn’t do anything for me. It sounds like I’ll be trading way down from where I’ve gotten.
June 30, 2009 at 6:24 pm
@ Janus Grayden,
Hi, I’m sorry but you keep saying that christians send to hell all that are not christians… I have to disagree. I’m sorry because I do not know of other christian churches, but in the official Catechism of the Catholic church you can read, in the point 1260:
“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved.”
So, as I read it, even though not being christian if you have good will you and I will be saved by God. For me is a relief to know that even if I completely loose my believes I can still be saved by God.
How do you see it?
June 30, 2009 at 6:27 pm
I’d have to say that I don’t trust a God that felt it okay to slaughter the entirety of the planet sans a small handful to be the foremost judge on what constitutes a good life.
Of course, that’s presupposing that you can actually prove God exists.
June 30, 2009 at 7:01 pm
@Janus Grayden,
Hi,
that was a fast answer… but you have not really answer, you have evaded what I said. whatever, I’m not trying to convince you, just to understand the reason of your affirmations… why do you say that christians condemn everybody that do not believe in Jesus, or God?
Maybe I’m mistaken, that’s why I asked you. As Albert Einstein said:
“We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.”
June 30, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Paul M–
If parts of the Bible are flawed, inaccurate and unfactual, why believe any of it? If a person testifies in a court trial and half of the testimony is true and half is false, the testimony becomes worthless and thrown out. They can not possibly be considered a credible witness.
Either the Bible is true or it isn’t. Faith can only be warranted on a solid foundation of credible truth. If a highly flawed and conflicting book written by highly flawed men is the only thing I have to believe in god, the testimony is worthless and I throw it out.
June 30, 2009 at 8:27 pm
TheBEattitude:
“If parts of the Bible are flawed, inaccurate and unfactual, why believe any of it?”
Because it contains God’s word.
Christians believe that God chose to reveal himself rather than be defined by reason and logic. We come to him in faith, not by logical deduction or scientific understanding. I think this was intentional – God wants everyone to believe and everyone is capable of faith. All you have to do is read the Bible and believe. A conflicting and factually challenged Bible means that belief in God will always be a matter of faith.
Rationalism leaves no room for truth that does not come by science and reason. If you limit your understanding or definition of truth to this, then the Bible is not a rational document and has no basis of truth.
Christians believe God is bigger than that.
June 30, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Paul, the only thing that says the Bible contains God’s Word is the Bible. You’re using something you already agree is fault to prove itself.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
The whole idea of faith over reason is a cop-out. If you can pick parts out of the Bible that you like, then I can do the same to defend where I’m coming from. If the Bible is to be believed, there are NUMEROUS instances where God comes down, performs an incredible work of power and takes credit for it.
Look at the case in Isiah, where the prophets of Baal are actually put to the test against the prophets of God. God actually answers a prayer in order to prove that He’s more real than the god of another religion. Not to mention that the only reason why Saul became Paul is because Jesus literally appeared to him on the road.
There’s no basis to say that God wants people to believe on faith and not any reason whatsoever. Even Abraham, the Father of Faith, needed God to appear to him repeatedly before he even did anything.
I’m sorry, but telling me that I have to ignore my rational mind and believe something just because I should believe it isn’t going to work.
Furthermore, I appreciate you going to my blog and wanting to open a discussion, but that’s not the forum for it. I’m more than happy to discuss matters over e-mail, which you should be able to find easily. However, Extheist isn’t really meant for heated debate and argument.
June 30, 2009 at 1:25 pm |
BE,
Do you have “contradiction-of-the day” toilet paper, or what? Becaue that’s about what your last few have been worth
Anthony touched on this, but I’ll try to make it very simple:
Matthew traces a primarily PATERNAL line.
Luke traces a primarily MATERNAL line.
They didn’t have words like “son-in-law”, so just as the practice in the South is to refer to your father-in-law as “Dad”, a very similar occurrence is happening here.
Lineage “contradiction” is not something that Dawkins, Hitchens, or even Erhman will touch due to easy refutation.
June 30, 2009 at 1:58 pm |
Matthew traces a primarily PATERNAL line. Luke traces a primarily MATERNAL line.
If Luke has a MATERNAL line, why does it refer to Heli as the father of Joseph? When Matthew refers to Jacob as the father of Joseph?
This line of apologia is ridiculous.
June 30, 2009 at 2:46 pm |
Yeah, this was covered pretty explicitly. You can’t even argue that this is irrelevant from a semantics standpoint. The Bible, being perfect, simply doesn’t allow a mistake like that, especially when referring to something as major as Jesus’ claim to messianic prophecy.
June 30, 2009 at 3:08 pm |
Reginald,
I don’t mean that Luke followed only the Women in genealogy, but Luke followed Mary’s line of ancestry and Matthew followed Joseph’s.
June 30, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Which words of the text give any clue that it is Mary’s genealogy?
It is very clear in language that Joseph was the son of two different men. Maybe Heli and Jacob were the first Biblical gay couple and they adopted Joseph. That would explain everything.
June 30, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Some scholars think that Luke may have actually interviewed Mary and that this is the source of the childhood stories of Jesus that do not appear in the other Gospels. Luke was traveling with Paul on his second missionary journey (Acts 16) and if you work out the chronology this would have been in the early 50′s. Mary, while no doubt an older woman, could have yet been alive in this timeframe.
June 30, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Paul M:
Of interest to you perhaps is the fact that, according to old church tradition, Luke did indeed know Mary. He is said to have painted the first icon of her. Also according to tradition, Mary lived to be rather old. On the order of 65-90 depending on how you do the chronology.
June 30, 2009 at 4:51 pm
According to old church tradition, the dead crawled out of their graves at the time of Christ’s crucifixion which, inexplicably, didn’t seem to warrant the notice of anybody else.
You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t take either as fact.
June 30, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
Yes, many call it the Bible. Your weak apologetics only make sense if you read the book with your eyes closed.
June 30, 2009 at 8:28 pm |
Well said!
June 30, 2009 at 8:51 pm |
The full name of Joseph father was Jacob Heli.
And the children killed by she-bears by Elisha’s cursing were not children were members of a very dangerous gang called Mara 13.
I learned that from Lee Strobel.
June 30, 2009 at 11:22 pm |
@olendariwin
The reason why most Christians believe that non-Christians go to hell is because the Bible is explicit on that.
Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
But, of course, 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 are probably the most clear: “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power”
So yeah, that’s why I say Christians believe that nonbelievers go to hell. If they don’t, then they don’t believe that the Bible is accurate. And, as I’ve mentioned before, if such a large part of the Bible is wrong, then who’s to say what else is wrong? Certainly us mortals are not qualified to pick and choose what parts of God’s Word are correct and incorrect. Also, just like theBEattitude said, how can you trust something that’s wrong? Just like in court, if a witness is known to be unreliable, then they’re unfit for testimony.
If the Bible is the only source you have for God and the Bible is wrong, then why do you think God still exists? There is nothing else in the universe that mentions God but the Bible. The people who came up with the stories are long since dead and, thus, the only reason why any of us know about the Judeo-Christian God is because of this Bible, which is known to be inaccurate.
July 1, 2009 at 11:25 am |
Question:
How would your conception of the afterlife differ from what Paul describes in 2 Thessalonians?
July 1, 2009 at 12:59 pm |
I don’t believe in an afterlife at all. That’s the point.
If I don’t believe the Bible is true, why would I believe in an afterlife? It’s not like the idea of an afterlife is corroborated by anything other than religious doctrines.
One life is good enough for me, thanks. Wishing for another doesn’t make it true.
July 1, 2009 at 1:52 pm
“I don’t believe in an afterlife at all. That’s the point.”
OK, fine. Compare this with what Paul says in 2 Thessalonians:
“In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power”
OK so flaming fire is a bit over the top, and the English translation here lets us down, but “Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” might be loosely interpreted as being consistent with your conception of the (non) afterlife.
Hell might be nothing more than being absent from the presence of God through eternity.
July 1, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Further to the above, here is the NIV Bible translation of 2 Thessalonians:
“This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.”
Maybe “everlasting destruction” is the best our translators can do for “no afterlife”. I’m no Bible scholar and I don’t wanna put words in your mouth, but does this agree, perhaps in a general way, with your view?
July 1, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Did you stretch before doing that gymnastics routine? I wouldn’t want you to pull something.
How you got from “everlasting torment” to “no afterlife” is beyond me. If there’s no afterlife, then there’s nothing to torment. The only way something can be destroyed eternally is if it still exists.
If I wasn’t convinced before, it’s obvious to me now that you will justify literally everything that goes against your foregone conclusion to yourself, no matter how arcane or convoluted.
If you’re honestly pulling the translation argument out, then I expect to see you actually go into the original Greek, give me the exact words it used and a full list of what they could mean and attempt to justify it that way. I have done the same with the original Hebrew in the Old Testament to prove that they literally forced rapists to marry their victims, provided they assaulted a virgin, as punishment. If all you have is what you assume something means based on nothing other than you want it to be true in order to fit your assertion, then I believe we’re done here.
July 1, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Well if you can translate the Greek I’d be interested, or was the original comment your translation? King James? Different Bible translations often give slightly different shades to the same Greek words. I thought the NIV version of 2 Thessalonians came close to saying the same thing as no afterlife for non-believers.
I guess you are entitled to your non-afterlife on your own terms.
July 1, 2009 at 6:42 pm
For getting the original text, I like to use Interlinear Bibles.
There’s a good one at http://www.biblestudytools.com.
Here’s what it says about that everlasting destruction bit in the 2 Thessalonians verses you mentioned.
The word for destruction used is “olethros.” It’s defined as “ruin, destroy, death” and it further clarifies the exact usage (Greek is pretty specific like that) to be “for the destruction of the flesh, said of the external ills and troubles by which the lusts of the flesh are subdued and destroyed.”
Now, that’s obviously a punishment. In fact, it even explicitly mentions punishment. The word for vengeance that is used is ekdikesis which doesn’t just mean punishment, it’s actually used to mean punishment done for the sake of justice.
There is absolutely nothing about those verses that indicates that this is anything less than an eternal torture that is seen as being a just punishment simply for not believing in God.
That’s patently absurd.
July 1, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Well I don’t read Greek and you seem to have a good understanding of the references. I agree that the key word in the passage is “destruction” or the Greek “olethros” which means, at least in part, “for the destruction of the flesh”. Prefaced by “ekdikesis” which is defined as a just punishment.
So if I claim that this amounts to “the just punishment of non-believers is destruction of the flesh” – in other words what we know as natural death and decay of the body (consistant with Paul’s believe in the resurrection of the body for believers), I’m betting you will disagree. Where am I not seeing the punishment part?
But thanks for digging up the Greek words. Knowing Greek is a great advantage.
July 1, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
@Janus Grayden,
First, thank you for answering. I like your answer, It seems to match your believes, it’s coherent and I appreciate that.
But I can’t agree with you, at least for catholics the bible is not the source to know the existence of God, the bible is mostly seeing as the revelation of god to humans to help us understand him. When reading the Catechism (I was the first amazed) that the source is, well, ourselves, the world, the beauty, love…
As soon as I have time available I will read the previous post you have and the other of Beattitude, but so far the “unreliable” or “incorrect” things of the bible do not affect it teachings. From the bible I learn moral lessons… things that are bad and things that are good, learning from the mistakes of the past makes us better, and also learning of the wise actions to repeat them. This makes the bible nothing more than a book, but it’s truly one of the most ancient and diverse compilation of books till today… a book that as I see it, speaks of how humans behave. As far as I know there is no other book like it. If your are religious then you might as well see it as the word of the lord, but well “inspired” by God do not mean dictated by god. And thats why, at least for catholics other sources are necessary…
I have to confess that there are a lot of things I don’t like of religion (mostly of its “human” structure), and that It will be much easy to just denied it, and become atheist, and no longer bother with this and that… but there is one single thing that ties me to religion: love. I have experience hate and love, I can’t denied my self of the truth of that feeling because, if I do, well, it will be a lie. The explanation of that feeling as a chemistry reaction or as a social development of human kin, well, made me sad, and I don’t think that explains the feeling. I’m a believer in love.
In that way I answer you, I am not sure if God exist, if there was a way to be completely sure it will be a fact, not a believe. In the same way, I’m sceptic with those who are sure of the non-existence of it. That it’s as well a believe, not a fact. The same thing applies with salvation, you will find text condemning those that do not believe, and also others giving salvation to all (1 Tim 2 4).
If something is true it do not matter if the source is unreliable, it will still be true. So many criminals have avoid prison because “unreliable witness” when what they were saying was true. Do you thing that the inaccuracy of the ancestors of Jesus changes the message? his teaching?
July 1, 2009 at 9:30 am |
This is one of the best comments I have read here:
If the Bible is the only source you have for God and the Bible is wrong, then why do you think God still exists? There is nothing else in the universe that mentions God but the Bible. The people who came up with the stories are long since dead and, thus, the only reason why any of us know about the Judeo-Christian God is because of this Bible, which is known to be inaccurate.
I am translating this to Spanish. Can I?
July 1, 2009 at 1:00 pm |
I think it’s pretty much public domain at this point.
July 2, 2009 at 9:42 am |
These verses are talking about two different genealogies. The only similarities in the genealogies are up until David — at that point it splits between Solomon and Nathan:
Matthew:
(…sparing all the names up through David)…
…David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jerhoram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Akim, Eliud, Eleazar, Mattan, Jacob, Joseph, [Mary], Jesus
Luke:
…David, Nathan, Mattatha, Menna, Melea, Eliakim, Jonam, Joseph, Judah, Simeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim, Eliezer, Joshua, Er, Elmadam, Cosam, Addi, Melki, Neri, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Rhesa, Joanan, Joda, Josech, Semein, Mattathias, Maath, Naggai, Esli, Nahum, Amos, Mattathias, Joseph, Jannai, Melki, Levi, Matthat, Heli, Joseph, Jesus
The book of Matthew refers to Mary and Luke refers to Joseph, who make up the parents of Jesus.
(Verse 16 has led many to think that “Joseph” refers to Mary’s husband, but really the word “husband” is the greek word “aner” which means “adult male” which is properly understood in this context (and Aramaic text supports as well) as “father”, as in Joseph (a common name at the time) was/is Mary’s dad.)