Geneology of Jesus

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:14 pm

I have heard people use this as a reason not to believe in the messiah. Does this article refute your unbelief?

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/library/iss ... ealogy.htm

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 9:42 am

Amadeus wrote: Does this article refute your unbelief?

No. It doesn't. This article is itself, like a 'Reader's Digest' version of apologetics for the conflicting genealogies in Matt and Luke. I have already presented a few counterarguments on this thread.
The reason that these genealogies disagree is because they were created independently. The reason that the authors of Matthew and Luke created them in the first place can be found in the article...
"As the Seed of the woman, Messiah had to come out of humanity. As the Seed of Abraham, Messiah had to come from the nation of Israel. As the Seed of Judah, he had to be of the tribe of Judah. As the Seed of David, he had to be of the family of David." (emphasis mine)

potwalloper. · Post by **potwalloper.** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 11:37 am

Does this article refute your unbelief?

It has no effect on my lack of belief as I consider the bible to be a work of fiction I'm afraid...

Overcomer · Post by **Overcomer** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 10:43 am

This article is itself, like a 'Reader's Digest' version of apologetics for the conflicting genealogies in Matt and Luke.

But they don't conflict. That's the whole point of the article from Jews for Jesus. They're complementary.

Thanks for the link, Amadeus. I knew that one genealogy was the line of Joseph and the other line of Mary. I enjoyed reading such a succinct explanation.

RevJP · Post by **RevJP** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 9:15 am

Overcomer wrote:But they don't conflict. That's the whole point of the article from Jews for Jesus. They're complementary.

Thanks for pointing that out. I was thinking that some around here were having difficulting reading and understanding the obvious. Two geneologies, one from Mary, one from Joseph. Mary's tracing the blood line and Joseph's tracing the adopted bloodline.

Both verifying prophesy of Jesus' being born as the Messiah.

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Wed Dec 29, 2004 6:51 am

RevJP wrote:I was thinking that some around here were having difficulting reading and understanding the obvious.

Obvious to you maybe. This business of a 'genealogy of Mary' is one of the sillier Christian apologetics.

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Prov 30:5-6

That's the problem. In order to make this explanation work, you have to add meaning to Luke that there is no indication he intended. Luke doesn't say that Joseph is the son-in-law of Heli, although he was perfectly capable of doing so. Luke doesn't mention Mary, but explicitly states that the genealogy is that of Joseph (Luke 3:23).
Luke claims he had "perfect understanding of all things" (Luke 1:3), he doesn't say "please consult Matthew's gospel for the rest of the story". Neither does Matthew suggest the same of Luke. Since both gospels existed independently for centuries before the creation of the NT canon, it's rather remarkable that they would each tell only one side of the story. This is the same silly argument used to conflate the fictitious nativity stories.

Vianne · Post by **Vianne** » Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:47 pm

I have to agree with Lotan. Both Luke and Matthew deliberately give every indication that their own record of the geneology is the correct one. There is just as much evidence to believe Jacob is Joseph's father as there is to believe Heli is, and so there is no way to accurately dissect either's biological line under the assumption that one is specifically Mary's father.

Even if there were evidence to point to one of the genetic lines as being that of Mary, it wouldn't matter. It couldn't be traced through the woman. That make clash with our Western notions of equality, but that's the way it was. It could *not* be different with the Messiah. The Messiah had to meet certain criteria, and you couldn't change the criteria to be sure that someone met them.

And let's not forget that the source of the belief in the virgin birth is an oft-misquoted passage out of Isaiah.

Isaiah was telling King Ahaz that by the time a young woman who is not pregnant today has a son who is old enough to eat solid foods (curds and honey), the political tension in his country would be resolved.

The word for "virgin" in the literal sense is "betulah", while the word for a generic "young woman" is "almah" -- the word used in the passage in question.

It did not mean a virgin would supernaturally conceive. What good would that do King Ahaz, if his sign didn't come for another seven hundred years after his death? There was never meant to be a virgin birth. This belief popped up during Roman times (around the same time the notion of a fiery hell became popular) when it was not unusual for gods to impregnate random human virgins (Alexander the Great was the son of Zeus, for instance).

Vianne

Vladd44 · Post by **Vladd44** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 11:09 am

RevJP wrote:Thanks for pointing that out. I was thinking that some around here were having difficulting reading and understanding the obvious. Two geneologies, one from Mary, one from Joseph. Mary's tracing the blood line and Joseph's tracing the adopted bloodline.

Could you show me ONE, thats 1, not 3 in one or some other xian voodoo with the numbers....... ONE place in your "divinely inspired" word of god that says that one of the geneologies belongs to mary specifically?

Just pointing out the obvious here.......

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 2:33 am

Read the article, my friend. It explains how in the culture it was common to put the article "the" in front of any man's name. When the article was not present, it implied the wife of that man. THAT is how we know that the geneology is that of Mary. It all goes back to the original language.

RevJP · Post by **RevJP** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 12:31 pm

Could you show me ONE, thats 1, not 3 in one or some other xian voodoo with the numbers....... ONE place in your "divinely inspired" word of god that says that one of the genealogies belongs to Mary specifically?

Simple answer: Show me ONE place in scripture that says it is not.

Better answer: Read the article, my friend. It explains how in the culture it was common to put the article "the" in front of any man's name. When the article was not present, it implied the wife of that man. THAT is how we know that the genealogy is that of Mary. It all goes back to the original language.

Vianne wrote:Both Luke and Matthew deliberately give every indication that their own record of the genealogy is the correct one.

Untrue, as stated. Both give the indication that the genealogies recorded are correct genealogies, neither claim exclusivity and neither discount the other.

And let's not forget that the source of the belief in the virgin birth is an oft-misquoted passage out of Isaiah.

Let us not forget that this is an oft-disputed claim and is the interpretation of the prophecy presented here is neither widely accepted, nor has it been in biblical history. This interpretation was presented after the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Prior to His coming the prophecy was accepted as pertaining to the Messiah.

Luke claims he had "perfect understanding of all things" (Luke 1:3), he doesn't say "please consult Matthew's gospel for the rest of the story". Neither does Matthew suggest the same of Luke. Since both gospels existed independently for centuries before the creation of the NT canon, it's rather remarkable that they would each tell only one side of the story

Now this argument is just silly. The Gospels are independent accounts and since they were written independently of one another and persevered independently of one another you suggest it is silly that they do not refer to each other or combine the points of view of the others? please...