A Christmas time contradiction.

[polonius]

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?

[JehovahsWitness]

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

[polonius]

The bible doesn't say Mary and Elizabeeth were cousins, the word used is "relative".

ANSWER: No

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

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 ...

Sure we do. It's in the Bible. Look it up.

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]

The bible doesn't say Mary and Elizabeeth were cousins, the word used is "relative

ANSWER: No

"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?

[showme]

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?

Isaiah 7:14 translates as "young maiden"/"young woman", not "virgin"
יד.לָ֠כֵן יִתֵּ֨ן �ֲדֹנָ֥י ה֛וּ� לָכֶ֖� �֑וֹת הִנֵּ֣ה הָֽעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן וְקָרָ֥�ת ש�ְמ֖וֹ עִמָּ֥נוּ �ֵֽל:

Now, doesn't that make you feel better?

[polonius]

JW posted

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?

RESPONSE:

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?

[polonius]

JW posted

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?

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.

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?

[brianbbs67]

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.

[brianbbs67]

Reference Mat.1-16 NKJ. for the above

[rikuoamero]

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.

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?
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.