By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ultima on 30 July 2013
Edit Thread
happydolphin said:
ultima said:

So your argument is: "JUST LOOK! IT'S OBVIOUS!" when the words on the page clearly say the opposite. You do know that in Jewish tradition an adoptee is considered a full family member, and would be included in the family tree, right?

So on one hand we have two distinct lineages for Joseph and choose to consider it an adoption, while on the other hand we can interpret it as him being the in-law.

For some reason you insist on considering it an adoption and the genealogies a contradiction.

Whereas using the in-law interpretation, which makes much more sense given the importance of Mary as the virgin mother of Christ and hence the importance of a genealogy on her side, we get a matching picture.

I mean the answer is really obvious. I'm sorry. It's just not a contradiction at all. On one end it's Joseph's true lineage, on the other it's Mary's. Simple shit.

It's more like this: on one hand we have the words of the book, on the other your explanation that is clearly not conforming with the words of the book. Which do we take? I'm sorry, if you're allowed to change wording at will, then you can make anything seem plausible. I brought up the adoption tradition because you made it seem like Joseph would've been a stranger to Jesus, and Joseph's lineage would not transfer down to Jesus; this is simply false by Jewish tradition.