therationa:

Has anybody done any further research on the genealogy of Jesus?

Have you commented on the views already offered and sicussed why they could not be helpful pointers on the seeming dichotomy between the genealogies in Matthew and Luke?

therationa:

Has anybody done any further research on the genealogy of Jesus?

Why dont you start yourself if you're dying to know how JESUS came about in existence? Why wait for another man to bamboozled you with his or her set of vague theory of JESUS CHRIST.

I advise you should spend
your time in seeking how you can make heaven and stop dreaming of walking in the air.

skyone:

Why wait for another man to bamboozled you with his or her set of vague theory of JESUS CHRIST.

I'm glad so many people are making these observations by the day. It has never helped anybody to plagiarize the views of other people on any subject when the plagiarists themselves have never been able to stay on course and defend their assumptions.

There are quite a few intelligent minds on the Forum who are atheistically inclined. The reason why I spend time reading their views is because I see originality in their discussions (even though I may not agree with some of their premises or answers) - they have always impressed me with their own thinking, rather than try to plagiarize the views of others they cannot defend.

Let me say this, therationa: before applauding the ideas of other people, why not spend time convincing yourself that you have enough understanding of the subject you deal on to sustain your arguments? It makes us wonder if those who scoot from thread to thread have anything of substance that they could offer others.

My last question was the discrepant generational gap between the genealogies in Luke and Matthew. On a very conservative calculation Luke genealogy is 100 years longer than Matthew's. And christains claim that Luke's is Mary's genealogy.

That would make Mary about 100 years older than Joseph when Jesus was born. The numbers just do not add up. That is my point.

Stimulus,

I take offense at your accusations of plagiarism. BTW, you are misrepresenting the meaning of the word. Plagiarism is where one copies someone else's work without the correct credits and in fact claims it it their own.

Nowhere in my posts can I be accused of plagiarism. Where I have been making a point and have known some source where that point is made better I have given links to the source. You do not call that plagiarism.

The arguments for/against theism have been around for a long time. In One of my threads I made a reference to Epicurus who lived in the BCE. In that post, my comments were correctly attributed. Is that plagiarism?

I have read on the subject a great deal, from the likes of Epicurus, Seneca, Cicero, Diderot, Laplace, Baron d'Holbach, Ingersoll, Tom Paine, George Smith, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Hitchens, Victor Stenger etc, etc, etc. So the arguments are not new. So it is inevitable that some of the points I make would not be new to you.

The force of an argument is not diminished by the fact that it has been made before.

@therationa,

therationa:

The numbers just do not add up. That is my point.

Perhaps you could have had a valid point if you'd looked carefully again that the 100 year-gap misses the point!

Look again: Matthew traces the genealogy from Abraham; while Luke traces it past Abraham backwards to Adam! At least no less than 15 names were mentioned from Abraham backwards to Adam in Luke's genealogy account; while Matthew skips those 15 names and starts from Abraham!

Did you ever sit down and try to ask yourself why Matthew traces the genealogy forwards from Abraham; while Luke traces it backwards from Joseph past Abraham and unto Adam?

This alone should make you understand that they were not trying to be stereotypical in their accounts; and by this is not stating that there was a descripancy between them! Rather, we are looking at the reasons behind why they adopted thes distinct approaches!

Among the various reasons that might be adduced, I'd give you that Matthew traces it the genealogy with Jewish interest to the promised "Kingdom" according to the Davidic lineage!

In Luke's case (being himself a physician - Col. 4:14), he traces the genealogy back to the first man, Adam; so as to convince his audience (primarily Theophilus) that Jesus Christ was actually truly Man! This is why Luke takes on the conception in more detail than you find in the synoptic Gospels (compare Luke 1:26 - 31 with the mention of His birth in Matthew 1).

Clearly, Matthew and Luke had clear objectives in theor accounts of the genealogy. You're looking at issues you have not been able to defend as a means to making allegations that miss the gist! Do you care to point out that the above could not be so in the distinct approaches in Matthew and Luke on the Genealogy?

@therationa,

therationa:

Stimulus,

I take offense at your accusations of plagiarism.

I apologise, even though it does not change my persuasion that your posts seem to be slaved upon the views of other people. The reason why I'm so persuaded are two: (a) I've seen the same thing represented in other blogs with very slight adjustments (as I took the time to walk you through the other one on the 2nd Coming); (b) you have not been able to defend your views but have made it a requirement for others to make comments which you have not discussed hitherto.

Again, I apologise; but then you can see that several people are concerned about these same issues in your attitude to the posts you make.

therationa:

BTW, you are misrepresenting the meaning of the word. Plagiarism is where one copies someone else's work with the correct credits and in fact claims it it their own.

I guess you meant to say "without the correct dredits"? Even so, I may have used the term broadly; excuse my brashness, but then is it not in the same category to absorb the ideas of another even when the resulting article has been adress up by and large? All the same, I didn't mean to be deliberately offensive.

therationa:

Nowhere in my posts can I be accused of plagiarism. Where I have been making a point and have known some source where that point is made better I have given links to the source. You do not call that plagiarism.

No, I do not call those which you referenced the same thing as 'plagiarism'; perhaps those which seem to be widely circulated in various forms may be regarded as such - especially where the posters have not been able to hold their course in thos posts.

therationa:

The arguments for/against theism have been around for a long time. In One of my threads I made a reference to Epicurus who lived in the BCE. In that post, my comments were correctly attributed. Is that plagiarism?

No.

therationa:

I have read on the subject a great deal, from the likes of Epicurus, Seneca, Cicero, Diderot, Laplace, Baron d'Holbach, Ingersoll, Tom Paine, George Smith, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Hitchens, Victor Stenger etc, etc, etc. So the arguments are not new. So it is inevitable that some of the points I make would not be new to you.

True.

therationa:

The force of an argument is not diminished by the fact that it has been made before.

True again. But the force of an argument is critically diminished by the fact that those who present them have never been able to defend their premise in well-rounded discourses.

I do apologise again for the inconvenience of the plagiarist attribution - I didn't mean it too deeply on you. Shake hands?

toluxa1
Jesus was not born of Joseph. He was born of God through Mary. Thats why the account of Luke points to the family of Mary.

But God [color=#990000]swore[/color] to Joseph that "of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh" he would raise up Christ (Act 2:20)

therationa:

My last question was the discrepant generational gap between the genealogies in Luke and Matthew. On a very conservative calculation Luke genealogy is 100 years longer than Matthew's. And christains claim that Luke's is Mary's genealogy.

That would make Mary about 100 years older than Joseph when Jesus was born. The numbers just do not add up. That is my point.

Therationa, i can up tomorrow and give a theory that Earth and livingthings has been in existence right before God's creation by arranging different rocks and bones plus testing soil; hence some people will surely believe me and blow it out of proportion.

The major thing here is follow your belief and follow well, theories and geneaological facts are always not 100% true but history is. i.e second world war we know started in 1945 but in 70years time a man can come up and say it actually started in December 1939. But the fact remains that Second world war existed.

Stimulus,

Thanks for the apologies which I graciously accept.

Therationa, i can up tomorrow and give a theory that Earth and livingthings has been in existence right before God's creation by arranging different rocks and bones plus testing soil; hence some people will surely believe me and blow it out of proportion.

The major thing here is follow your belief and follow well, theories and geneaological facts are always not 100% true but history is. i.e second world war we know started in 1945 but in 70years time a man can come up and say it actually started in December 1939. But the fact remains that Second world war existed.

this is a bad analogy. the bible is supposed to be accurate given that it's the word of God. why trust the bible if it's text are inconsistent??

@bawomolo

Why use science to discuss God if it can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God?

@imohep

U sound very modest and i admire ur intelligence.

@bawomolo
U didn't understand the analogy,

bawomolo:

.The major thing here is follow your belief and follow well, theories and geneaological facts are always not 100% true but history is. i.e second world war we know started in 1945 but in 70years time a man can come up and say it actually started in December 1939. But the fact remains that Second world war existed.

The truth is Second world war started in 1945 right or wrong? and the history about Jesus happened over 2000 years ago and that is what we should base our belief on, not fictions and untrue theories.

therationa:

Stimulus,

Thanks for the apologies which I graciously accept.

Good to know. Enjoy.

Alphazee:

But God [color=#990000]swore[/color] to Joseph that "of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh" he would raise up Christ (Act 2:20)

What the. . .?

Ha! @Alphazee,

It should've been Acts 2:30 you meant. In anycase, the verse was not about Joseph, but rather about David. I'll just quote it so you can see for yourself:

Acts 2:29-30

[list]²⁹Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. ³⁰Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;[/list]

Stimulus


[b]Perhaps you could have had a valid point if you'd looked carefully again that the 100 year-gap misses the point!

Look again: Matthew traces the genealogy from Abraham; while Luke traces it past Abraham backwards to Adam! At least no less than 15 names were mentioned from Abraham backwards to Adam in Luke's genealogy account; while Matthew skips those 15 names and starts from Abraham!

Did you ever sit down and try to ask yourself why Matthew traces the genealogy forwards from Abraham; while Luke traces it backwards from Joseph past Abraham and unto Adam?

This alone should make you understand that they were not trying to be stereotypical in their accounts; and by this is not stating that there was a descripancy between them! Rather, we are looking at the reasons behind why they adopted thes distinct approaches!

Among the various reasons that might be adduced, I'd give you that Matthew traces it the genealogy with Jewish interest to the promised "Kingdom" according to the Davidic lineage!

In Luke's case (being himself a physician - Col. 4:14), he traces the genealogy back to the first man, Adam; so as to convince his audience (primarily Theophilus) that Jesus Christ was actually truly Man! This is why Luke takes on the conception in more detail than you find in the synoptic Gospels (compare Luke 1:26 - 31 with the mention of His birth in Matthew 1).

Clearly, Matthew and Luke had clear objectives in theor accounts of the genealogy. You're looking at issues you have not been able to defend as a means to making allegations that miss the gist! Do you care to point out that the above could not be so in the distinct approaches in Matthew and Luke on the Genealogy? Cheesy
[/b]



With due respect you commit several logical flaws in your posts, given above.

First a genealogical list is simply that; whether it is given front-2-back or back-2-front, it should matter not a bit, as long as all the relevant parties are included in the correct order. By itself, it carries not order information but that.

Now the genealogy of Matthew runs thus;

Abraham - David - - - - - Matthan - Jacob - Joseph - Jesus.

The genealogy of Luke runs thus;

Adam - - - Abraham - David - Matthat - Heli - Joseph - Jesus.


What I would have expected in both genealogies from David to Jesus was the same number of generations, or there abouts. Let's allow for a margin of error of 2 or 3 generations, amounting to about 39-45 years, on the calculation the first children were born to 13-15year old mothers.

Now, but the generational gap is 15, a staggering 195 - 225 years.

Why don't you go and perform a small experiment. Take a sample of say 10 people of similar age to yourself and your partner. For each of these people, go back 10 generation in their family tree. You will notice that the 10th generation grand-parents will have been born within the same decade or two from one-another.

To have a generational gap of hundreds of years is simply unheard-of.


Now, Luke's genealogy is even more problematic given that he extends it to the apparent start of humanity in the garden of Eden. On his calculation, humans have been on earth no more than 10000years. This is simply BOGUS.

Humans (Homo sapients) have walked the earth circa 120K - 200K years. Why don't you read Dr. Francis Collins "The Language of God" or Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God".

Pardon me please, any arguments contravening the genetic/DNA analysis is simply argument from ignorance. Unless you come up with well attested scientifically verified alternatives. Science is always ready for a paradigm shift, until such a time the genetic/DNA analysis remains the most plausible explanation.

therationa:

What I would have expected in both genealogies from David to Jesus was the same number of generations, there abouts. Let's allow for a margin of error of 2 or 3 generations, amounting to about 39-45 years, on the calculation the first children were born to 13-15year old mothers.

Now, but the generational gap is 15, a staggering 195 - 225 years.

that is based on ur own calculation that everyone gets married and has children about the same age which is simply false.

therationa:

Why don't you go and perform a small experiment. Take a sample of say 10 people of similar age to yourself and your partner. For each of these people, go back 10 generation in their family tree. You will notice that the 10th generation grand-parents will have been born within the same decade or two from one-another.

I did the same. My maternal grandmother is just about in her 70s . . . however my paternal grandfather died 26 yrs ago and he was well into his late 80s. That is a gap of about 30yrs. My parents are only 3yrs apart in age.

Now we know that women were married and had children a lot younger than is applicable in our age. We also know that men in the bible lived and had children even at 600yrs of age . . . If a man at 100yrs had a child . . . then remarried at 600 to have another child . . . that is a gap of 500yrs between 2 children of the same father . . .

therationa:

To have a generational gap of hundreds of years is simply unheard-of.

bogus. Methuselah lived for over 900yrs and he was still having kids.

therationa:

Now, Luke's genealogy is even more problematic given that he extends it to the apparent start of humanity in the garden of Eden. On his calculation, humans have been on earth no more than 10000years. This is simply BOGUS.

Humans (Homo sapients) have walked the earth circa 120K - 200K years. Why don't you read Dr. Francis Collins "The Language of God" or Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God".

That is dependent on if Francis Collins can prove to us exactly when homo sapiens appeared on earth.

therationa:

Pardon me please, any arguments contravening the genetic/DNA analysis is simply argument from ignorance. Unless you come up with well attested scientifically verified alternatives.

that is assuming that DNA analysis is foolproof which we know it is not.

4HIM,

I get the sense that you have learnt to read and write without being EDUCATED or SCHOLARLY. When I make reference to my source (viz, Francis Collins & Ken Miller) you seem to brush these aside as though these sources are bogus. What sort of attitude is that? It smack of the eclesiatically book-burning of yore.

Shall I deal with the cosmological arguments for an old earth? Can you find sources on the internet dealing with such materials? That is an exercise for you, boy.

therationa:

4HIM,

I get the sense that you have learnt to read and write without being EDUCATED or SCHOLARLY. When I make reference to my source (viz, Francis Collins & Ken Miller) you seem to brush these aside as though these sources are bogus. What sort of attitude is that? It smack of the eclesiatically book-burning of yore.

Shall I deal with the cosmological arguments for an old earth? Can you find sources on the internet dealing with such materials? That is an exercise for you, boy.

you on the other hand seem to equate "scholarly" education with simply quoting from any godless soul. I simply asked you questions that i expected an "educated" person to tackle . . . how does Francis Collins prove to us that homo sapiens had been walking the earth for 100,000 yrs?
How does he know when we appeared on earth? Through the inconclusive evidence of carbon dating?

4HIM,

If you were really interested you would go read these books. Do I NEED to tell you that? Apparently looks like I need to.

therationa:

4HIM,

If you were really interested you would go read these books. Do I NEED to tell you that? Apparently looks like I need to.

If you were really interested you would go read the bible. Do I NEED to tell you that? Apparently looks like I need to.

4HIM,

Let's assume you or any of your family fell ill (say with some genetic condition) and they went to hospital, would you prefer that the doctors be experts in biology (DNA, genetics etc) or would you rather they were experts in the bible?

PS. I dont't know where I get the patience to come down so low. This smacks of debating with a 10 year old.

Let's assume you or any of your family fell ill (say with some genetic condition) and they went to hospital, would you prefer that the doctors be experts in biology (DNA, genetics etc) or would you rather they were experts in the bible?

probably answer, "God gave doctors the knowledge they have today"

therationa:

4HIM,

Let's assume you or any of your family fell ill (say with some genetic condition) and they went to hospital, would you prefer that the doctors be experts in biology (DNA, genetics etc) or would you rather they were experts in the bible?

stuff and nonsense. My mom is a peadiatrician yet she remains a very strong christian.
No one is advocating kicking out common sense and science in favour of the bible only.

By the way, of what purpose is this analogy? What question did it answer?

therationa:

PS. I don't't know where I get the patience to come down so low. This smacks of debating with a 10 year old.

frankly i'm asking myself the same question. You just copy and paste from fellow godless souls like you, you have no oppinion of yours.
Each time i subject any of ur fond quotes from other authors to the same scrutiny that you subject the bible i find you sadly wanting.

You love Francis Collins . . . pls prove to us how he/she knew without a doubt that the 10,000 yr existence of man as u deduced from the bible is wrong and his/her idea of 100,000yrs is the correct one.

What DNA analysis did he/she use? One that was 100,000yrs old?

Francis Collins was the director of the Genome Project (have you ever heard of such a thing). GO READ his work, for goodness sake. You may learn a thing or two.

therationa:

Francis Collins was the director of the Genome Project (have you ever heard of such a thing). GO READ his work, for goodness sake. You may learn a thing or two.

and that automatically confers an ability to know how long man has been on earth?
I ask again . . . HOW did she/he come by the dates 100 - 120k yrs of homo sapiens existence on earth?
Where is the DNA evidence? We know DNA does not last that long so how did they know?

Being the director of the genome project does not make her any smarter than the guy next door.

and while we are it pls grab a copy of the bible you have spent ur precious time mocking before telling us to go read one more of ur godless books that have no bearing with common sense.

4HIM,

How long do you think it takes to convert organic matter in fossil fuels, like the petrol you use in your car? Try and correlate that with how long you think the earth has been around.

therationa:

4HIM,

How long do you think it takes to convert organic matter in fossil fuels, like the petrol you use in your car? Try and correlate that with how long you think the earth has been around.

again that time is subject to speculation. No one can categorically tell us exactly how long it takes to convert organinc matter to fossil fuels. It could be 1m yrs which makes nonsense of Francis Collins estimate of 100 - 120k yrs.

Again are we assuming that homo sapiens were on earth about the same time as the dinosaurs?

@therationa,

I didn't see your rejoinder to mine earlier; so I'd like to quickly deal with your assumptions thereto.

therationa:

Stimulus

With due respect you commit several logical flaws in your posts, given above.

I'd like to see the "logical" flaws.

therationa:

First a genealogical list is simply that; whether it is given front-2-back or back-2-front, it should matter not a bit, as long as all the relevant parties are included in the correct order. By itself, it carries not order information but that.

I think that is the colossal mistake you often make, my dear sir. That is why your assumptions keep leaking through, and you have not been able to hold your grounds when discussing your premise on the geneaology.

Biblical genealogy is not a matter of "simply that" - they are given with a specific purpose in mind, and they do not have to be pauperized to your assumptions.

Ordinarily, even those who are beginning to develop the discipline of tracing genealogies have made it clear that there are various approaches to tracing a lineage. Not all genealogies follow a static pattern, as you're pedantically arguing here; and just to illustrate the point, let me refer to one such example online: GENUKI - UK and Ireland Genealogy  --

[list]There are in fact three commonly adopted plans:

[list]Some people aim to produce a "Family Tree" - showing their male-line ancestors (father, grandfather, greatgrandfather, etc.) and the wives, brothers and sisters of these ancestors. (It is of course possible to concentrate on female-line ancestors, but the types of records that were kept, and the common practice whereby a wife took her husband's surname at marriage, can make this difficult.)

Others try to produce what is sometimes termed an "Extended Family Tree". Such a tree shows all the collateral branches of a family, i.e. all the descendants (with their spouses) of some earliest known (typically, but not necessarily) male-line ancestor. An extended family tree therefore will grow to include many of your distant cousins.

Yet others attempt just to trace as many as possible of their direct ancestors, through both male and female lines, and so produce what is termed an "Ancestry Chart". (In fact, even if you re only trying to trace your ancestry it is wise to record any information you happen to obtain about your ancestors' siblings, since such information can sometimes help to resolve tricky questions of identification.)[/list]
[/list]

You can see that even outside the discussion of Biblical genealogy patterns, your own assumptions are too simplistic and often untennable and quite averse to a practical sense of the subject.

The point here is simple: you cannot assume a linear idea in the genealogy - and as long as you fail to examine the purpose of the genealogical accounts in Matthew and Luke, you will continue to fail in seeing that they adopted different approaches (which have already been outlined in my previous rejoinders). You haven't really thought out your premise logically, though.

therationa:

Now the genealogy of Matthew runs thus;

Abraham - David - - - - - Matthan - Jacob - Joseph - Jesus.

The genealogy of Luke runs thus;

Adam - - - Abraham - David - Matthat - Heli - Joseph - Jesus.

You faltered on Luke's account. I already told you it runs backwards from Jesus to Adam, and not from Adam to Jesus! Bobs, was that too difficult to see?

therationa:

What I would have expected in both genealogies from David to Jesus was the same number of generations, or there abouts.

You would have "expected" to see it that way - only if you keep evading the fact that there are different approaches to tracing genealogies; and no less so when considering their purposes!

therationa:

Let's allow for a margin of error of 2 or 3 generations, amounting to about 39-45 years, on the calculation the first children were born to 13-15year old mothers.

You'd first have to define your factors for arriving at those figures.

therationa:

Now, but the generational gap is 15, a staggering 195 - 225 years.

You're cheating yourself because you assume that Matthew starts where Luke began and both ended at exactly the same point! Wrong as ever again!

therationa:

Why don't you go and perform a small experiment. Take a sample of say 10 people of similar age to yourself and your partner. For each of these people, go back 10 generation in their family tree. You will notice that the 10th generation grand-parents will have been born within the same decade or two from one-another.

Let's give you a small experiment: please consult every genealogy expert you know of, and enquire if there is one and only one approach to tracing genealogies!

What is even more amazing is that you don't seem to have a grip on the difference between Abraham and Adam! Goodness!

therationa:

To have a generational gap of hundreds of years is simply unheard-of.

Yeah - as "unheard of" as your zooming presumptions are! My dear sir, I would like you to revisit my rejoinder where I clearly set forth the fact that Luke traces the genealogy from Jesus back to Adam, while Matthew skips no less than 15 names from Adam and begins at Abraham. Bottomline: both Matthew and Luke examined the lineage at a reference point - Abraham, although either of them adopted different approaches!

therationa:

Now, Luke's genealogy is even more problematic given that he extends it to the apparent start of humanity in the garden of Eden. On his calculation, humans have been on earth no more than 10000years. This is simply BOGUS.

Your assertion in itself is quite bogus - for Luke did not tell you that he calculated any figure to arrive at 10000 years! Care to be honest?

therationa:

Humans (Homo sapients) have walked the earth circa 120K - 200K years. Why don't you read Dr. Francis Collins "The Language of God" or Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God".

Thanks for the recommendations - I'd simply like to know how you arrived yet at the figures of 120K-200K; not to mention the whopping gap of about 80K between both figures!

therationa:

Pardon me please, any arguments contravening the genetic/DNA analysis is simply argument from ignorance. Unless you come up with well attested scientifically verified alternatives. Science is always ready for a paradigm shift, until such a time the genetic/DNA analysis remains the most plausible explanation.

I don't see how you have applied scientific reasoning here. You have pretended to do so - and m-e-n, you gigantic leap of a gap 80K wide is more disastrous than your allegations against Matthew and Luke combined!

Lol, at the end of the day, you haven't impressed me with your "logic"!

Let us make therationa's fantasy more fantastic:

In John 8:58 Jesus says, "before [i]Abraham [/i]was, I Am"

How can therationa reconcile this with the two genealogies that he is so worried about??

imhotep:

Let us make therationa's fantasy more fantastic:

In John 8:58 Jesus says, "before [i]Abraham [/i]was, I Am"

How can therationa reconcile this with the two genealogies that he is so worried about??

Oh my goodness! You anticipated what I had for him in my next rejoinder!

Stimulus,


Please, pls, pls. I think you are bullshitting (pardon me, I don't mean to be insulting. I am using the BS word in a "philosophical sense" around. Watch this video and hope you get it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSdkyjszSt4