I am always puzzled by the alternating scriptures for Christmas, the writings of Matthew and the writings of Luke.
Matthew tells us that Jesus was born while Herod was king (who died in 4 BC). Luke tells us that Jesus was born during the census of Syria conducted by Quirinus in 6 AD.
Luke tells us that John’s parents came from a priestly family of Aaron, not David, This is what is meant by ‘daughter of Aaron,’ (not a daughter of David).
So if Mary were the cousin of Elizabeth or any blood relative, she would also be of Aaron’s bloodline, not David’s.
And, of course, women lack a Y chromosome so they can’t transmit the DNA for maleness.
So if Jesus was of virgin birth he would not have been of Davidic ancestry and would be a woman.
Are we to consider both Matthew’s and Luke’s scripture to be inspired on these points?
A Christmas time contradiction.
Moderator: Moderators
- JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 21109
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 792 times
- Been thanked: 1122 times
- Contact:
Re: A Christmas time contradiction.
Post #2polonius wrote:
So if Mary were the cousin of Elizabeth or any blood relative, she would also be of Aaron’s bloodline, not David’s.
The bible doesn't say Mary and Elizabeeth were cousins, the word used is "relative".
Tradition holds that, Mary’s mother and Elizabeth’s mother were fleshly sisters of the tribe of Levi. That would mean that Mary and Elizabeth were first cousins and John the Baptist and Jesus were second cousins., but like I said, we don't know how they were related ...
Are biblical hereditary rights based on biology?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 98#p781898
Who was Heli?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 30#p867330
When does Luke indicate Jesus was born?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 63#p831863
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Sat Aug 07, 2021 5:36 am, edited 2 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
Re: A Christmas time contradiction.
Post #3JehovahsWitness wrote:
ANSWER: NoThe bible doesn't say Mary and Elizabeeth were cousins, the word used is "relative".
The Greek term used by scripture for the relationship between Mary and Elizabeth is “suggenes� defined by the NAS Greek Lexicon as : “the same kin, akin to, related by blood�
The issue is if Mary is of the same blood as Elizabeth, she is Aaronic in descent not Davidic, nor would Jesus have been if he had a virgin birth via Mary
Sure we do. It's in the Bible. Look it up.Tradition holds that, Mary’s mother and Elizabeth’s mother were fleshly sisters of the tribe of Levi. That would mean that Mary and Elizabeth were first cousins and John the Baptist and Jesus were second cousins., but like I said, we don't know how they were related ...
Levi is not Davidic but rather is the grandfather of Aaron
The simple fact is if Jesus was the son of Mary he was not of Davidic descent and therefore could not be the Messiah. Also, a virgin birth would only produce girls since a mother could not transmit what she herself did not have that is the Y chromosome for maleness .
- JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 21109
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 792 times
- Been thanked: 1122 times
- Contact:
Re: A Christmas time contradiction.
Post #4polonius wrote:ANSWER: NoJehovahsWitness wrote:
The bible doesn't say Mary and Elizabeeth were cousins, the word used is "relative
"No" what?!
No they are not described as "relatves"? What are you disagreeing with (no)? No.. a "blood realative" is not a relative? Isn't that like saying "No! a red flower is not a flower"? If their mothers were sisters would that not make them blood relatives, what ar e you "no-ing" about?
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
Re: A Christmas time contradiction.
Post #5Isaiah 7:14 translates as "young maiden"/"young woman", not "virgin"polonius wrote: I am always puzzled by the alternating scriptures for Christmas, the writings of Matthew and the writings of Luke.
Matthew tells us that Jesus was born while Herod was king (who died in 4 BC). Luke tells us that Jesus was born during the census of Syria conducted by Quirinus in 6 AD.
Luke tells us that John’s parents came from a priestly family of Aaron, not David, This is what is meant by ‘daughter of Aaron,’ (not a daughter of David).
So if Mary were the cousin of Elizabeth or any blood relative, she would also be of Aaron’s bloodline, not David’s.
And, of course, women lack a Y chromosome so they can’t transmit the DNA for maleness.
So if Jesus was of virgin birth he would not have been of Davidic ancestry and would be a woman.
Are we to consider both Matthew’s and Luke’s scripture to be inspired on these points?
יד.×œÖ Ö¸×›Öµ×Ÿ יִתֵּ֨ן ×�Ö²×“Ö¹× Ö¸Ö¥×™ ה֛וּ×� לָכֶ֖×� ×�֑וֹת ×”Ö´× Ö¼ÖµÖ£×” הָֽעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן וְקָרָ֥×�ת ש×�ְמ֖וֹ ×¢Ö´×žÖ¼Ö¸Ö¥× ×•Ö¼ ×�ֵֽל:
Now, doesn't that make you feel better?
Post #6
JW posted
Perhaps if you read the whole message you will grasp the the basic concept. Mary seems to be a blood relative of Elizabeth therefore descended from Aaron and not relative of David. Thus the child of her virgin birth was not Davidic (and actually couldn't be male either).
And lets look at what else is the "God breathed" scripture tells us:
The most intractable contradictions between the Nativity accounts are:
1. Two completely different genealogies for Joseph.
2. Luke places the date Jesus’ birth ten years later than Matthew. (4 BC vs 6 A.D.) see death of Herod and Judean 6 AD census.
3. Matthew has no birth in a manger story. Luke says they were living in Nazareth and traveling to Bethlehem for a census),
4. Matthew says that Jesus’ family fled to Egypt after the birth and moved to Nazareth only after the death of Herod. Luke says they were living in Nazareth all along and returned there immediately after Jesus was circumcised,
5. Luke know nothing of Herod’s slaughter of the Innocents or a flight to Egypt. In fact, by Luke’s chronology, Herod was already dead when Jesus was born.
Inerrant scripture do you believe?
RESPONSE:So they are not described as "relatves"? What are you disagreeing with (no)? No.. a "blood realative" is not a relative? Isn't that like saying "No! a red flower is not a flower"? If their mothers were sisters would that not make them blood relatives, what ar e you "no-ing" about?
Perhaps if you read the whole message you will grasp the the basic concept. Mary seems to be a blood relative of Elizabeth therefore descended from Aaron and not relative of David. Thus the child of her virgin birth was not Davidic (and actually couldn't be male either).
And lets look at what else is the "God breathed" scripture tells us:
The most intractable contradictions between the Nativity accounts are:
1. Two completely different genealogies for Joseph.
2. Luke places the date Jesus’ birth ten years later than Matthew. (4 BC vs 6 A.D.) see death of Herod and Judean 6 AD census.
3. Matthew has no birth in a manger story. Luke says they were living in Nazareth and traveling to Bethlehem for a census),
4. Matthew says that Jesus’ family fled to Egypt after the birth and moved to Nazareth only after the death of Herod. Luke says they were living in Nazareth all along and returned there immediately after Jesus was circumcised,
5. Luke know nothing of Herod’s slaughter of the Innocents or a flight to Egypt. In fact, by Luke’s chronology, Herod was already dead when Jesus was born.
Inerrant scripture do you believe?
"Cousin" is not the term correctly translated
Post #7polonius wrote: JW posted
RESPONSE:So if Mary were the cousin (actually the Greek term used by scripture for the relationship between Mary and Elizabeth is [b]“suggenes� [/b]defined by the NAS Greek Lexicon as : “the same kin, akin to, related by blood� (not cousin) of Elizabeth or any blood relative, she would also be of Aaron’s bloodline, not David’s and hence not the messiah.So they are not described as "relatves"? What are you disagreeing with (no)? No.. a "blood realative" is not a relative? Isn't that like saying "No! a red flower is not a flower"? If their mothers were sisters would that not make them blood relatives, what ar e you "no-ing" about?
Perhaps if you read the whole message you will grasp the the basic concept. Mary seems to be a blood relative of Elizabeth therefore descended from Aaron and not relative of David. Thus the child of her virgin birth was not Davidic (and actually couldn't be male either).
And lets look at what else is the "God breathed" scripture tells us:
The most intractable contradictions between the Nativity accounts are:
1. Two completely different genealogies for Joseph.
2. Luke places the date Jesus’ birth ten years later than Matthew. (4 BC vs 6 A.D.) see death of Herod and Judean 6 AD census.
3. Matthew has no birth in a manger story. Luke says they were living in Nazareth and traveling to Bethlehem for a census),
4. Matthew says that Jesus’ family fled to Egypt after the birth and moved to Nazareth only after the death of Herod. Luke says they were living in Nazareth all along and returned there immediately after Jesus was circumcised,
5. Luke know nothing of Herod’s slaughter of the Innocents or a flight to Egypt. In fact, by Luke’s chronology, Herod was already dead when Jesus was born.
Inerrant scripture do you believe?
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1871
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:07 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #8
I was always taught that Joseph was the link to the house of David and Mary to the Levi's. In Hebrew society, once adopted, you were part of that line, legally and otherwise.
Though the real Christmas contradiction is Christmas itself but that would be another thread.
Though the real Christmas contradiction is Christmas itself but that would be another thread.
- rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Post #10
What I've always wondered is just how everyone on the Christian side is so sure that Joseph is descended from David. Are we to assume that the Jews kept absolutely meticulous genealogical records, that there was no tampering, no false claims of succession? That these records survived intact even during and after the taking of the Jews to Babylon?brianbbs67 wrote: I was always taught that Joseph was the link to the house of David and Mary to the Levi's. In Hebrew society, once adopted, you were part of that line, legally and otherwise.
Though the real Christmas contradiction is Christmas itself but that would be another thread.
I also want to respond to the idea you bring up regarding being adopted. Think about what Christians claim about Jesus, that he fulfilled prophecy, that the odds of him doing so and not being divine are so low as to be termed ridiculous. If we consider the Messiah as having to be biologically descended from David, then only actual biological descendants can fulfill that.
But if one can be adopted into the line? Then suddenly this opens the door to just about anyone claiming descent. All they have to do is find someone who is already acknowledged to be a descendant and have that person adopt them.
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense