By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ultima on 31 July 2013
Edit Thread
DaRev said:
ultima said:
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.

Dude, seriously, what is wrong with you? Happydolphin already explained the differing accounts in Matthew and Luke, in that they give account for Jesus' TWO earthly parents. TWO parents hence TWO generation lines, that lead back to David, as prophesy predicted.

Moreover, and this might be the 3rd time I'm saying this inn this thread, Matthew and Luke were wrttien with two different audiences in mind. Matthew was written with the Jewish reader in mind so it naturally accounted for Joseph's family tree. Luke on the other was written for a Roman (or maybe Greeks, I can't remember) so it listed the Mother, Mary's family. Also, Luke was more focused on FACTS as oppsed to TRADITION, and thus if Jesus' father was REALLY some man in the sky then the only FACT was that MARY was his mother so it is her family that was important for LUKE's (as oppsed to Matthew's) readers. And I'm not just talking shit, as Luke 1:1-4 below, clearly tells you that Luke was gathering factual EVIDENCE from EYEWITNESS to present those factual accounts to Theophilus, who I assume was Roman dignitary:

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

 

You haven't read my answers to Happydolphin, or there's something clearly wrong with you. Here, let me summarize. Mary isn't mentioned anywhere in that chapter of Luke. In fact, it clearly states that Jesus, was (as supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, etc. (paraphrased KJV). Your explanation is clearly not consistent with the words of the book.

Also, your assumption that Theophilus was a Roman (or Greek) dignitary is unbacked. Hence, your different audience argument is not backed up by anything. Your facts versus tradition argument is also very weak. So what, Matthew's account of Jesus's life is not factual, but just a description of some tradition?

Also, I wrote this out especially for you: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=5551747.