By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ultima on 02 August 2013
Edit Thread
DaRev said:
ultima said:

@bold: So if I cannot accept a dubious claim, then we need not discuss anything?

@italicized: So if I cannot accept another dubious claim, then the discussion is futile? Acts starts with a story of resurrection and flight of Jesus into the sky. How is anyone supposed to accept that as a historical fact?

Look, let's say you are right about different audiences/purposes. It does not change the words of the book. The words of the book clearly and unambiguously state that the genealogy presented in Luke is that of Joseph.

@bold: There is an estimated 7,021,836,029 Christians in the world, who accept those claims. Thus, I don’t see why I have to go proving the matter to you. You either accept it or you don’t.

@italicized: Because you haven’t read the other 27 chapters, over 1,000 other verses, neither the over 20,000 other words. That’s why you don’t know and, thus, can’t accept it as a book of historical fact of the church. But, you don’t have to waste your time reading it – as I said above, other people have already done the research, so go look it up for yourself online and see what other people say the book of Acts is.

Now were getting somewhere. Ok, I would concede that Luke could have been a bit clearer on the matter.  However, what Luke does say, i.e. that Jesus “being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph”, infers that it was not Joseph’s true lineage. The NIV translation of the bible puts it this way, “so it was thought” that Jesus was the son of Joseph.

Remember, Luke is concerned with the FACTS, so if Luke is accepting that Joseph is NOT the natural father of Jesus, then he wouldn’t count or record his lineage. Remember, Luke is dealing with just what he holds to be the facts and eyewitness accounts. Therefore, Luke did not ‘suppose’ that Mary was Jesus’ Mother – he accepted that as a fact. Therefore, he would have recorded Mary’s lineage, not Joseph’s, as he could be sure about Mary’s parental claim to Jesus, but not Joseph’s – and more so, Luke’s readers probably wouldn’t have accepted a supposition either.

In any event, I agree that Luke probably should have just said ‘Mary daughter of Heli’  , but that’s not the way things worked back then.

@bold: Those "estimates" are clearly wrong. That would mean 95-100% of the population of the earth is Christian. That is clearly false. Even if the figures were correct, it would still mean nothing. The majority of the people used to believe that cutting yourself and letting your blood pour out would heal you of diseases. That didn't make them right.

@italicized: I stated this before I'm pretty sure, but I've read the entire bible, cover to cover. I can't accept it as a historical account, because it's internally inconsistent, and it depicts events that are impossible.

Luke saying "Jesus being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph" means that it was supposed that Jesus was the son of Joseph. It doesn't say "... Joseph, (as was supposed) the son of Heli...". At bolded part: exactly, Luke claims that Jesus wasn't actually the son of Joseph; he doesn't claim that Joseph wasn't actually the son of Heli. Again, all the versions of the bible I've come across clearly state that the lineage is Joseph's.

I have no idea what you mean by Luke did not suppose that Mary was Jesus's mother, but rather accepted it.