therationa:

Imhotep,

Pardon me. Looks like you are clutching at straws. You have completely evaded the centrality of my questions. I shall restated them;

1) Both Luke and Matt give Jesus' father as Joseph but totally different paternal grand-generations. How come?

2) You guys have made the case that Luke's is actually Mary's genealogy, although Mary's name does not appear anywhere in the tree of both accounts. Even if I concede this point, there are still a lot of problems with the account.

3) Luke's account has 15 generations more that Matt's. This simply does not make sense. It would imply Mary's was much older than Joseph when Jesus was born.

4) Luke's account extends to the start of humanity, implying humanity started about 10000 years ago. But this is BOGUS.


These are the central issues about this question. Put you thinking hat, please, before attempting them again. Don't just recite verbiage from the bible.

therationa:

1) Both Luke and Matt give Jesus' father as Joseph but totally different paternal grand-generations. How come?

therationa:

2) You guys have made the case that Luke's is actually Mary's genealogy, although Mary's name does not appear anywhere in the tree of both accounts.

therationa:

Even if I concede this point, there are still a lot of problems with the account.

therationa:

3) Luke's account has 15 generations more that Matt's. This simply does not make sense.

therationa:

It would imply Mary's was much older than Joseph when Jesus was born.

therationa:

4) Luke's account extends to the start of humanity, implying humanity started about 10000 years ago. But this is BOGUS.

therationa:

These are the central issues about this question.

therationa:

Put you thinking hat, please, before attempting them again.

therationa:

Don't just recite verbiage from the bible.

therationa:

Stimulus,


Please, please, please. 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.

therationa:

Watch this video and hope you get it.


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

therationa:

This is breathtaking ! So should we believe that he was descended from David?

therationa:

And how was he descended?

therationa:

Would you apply such levity to the Koran or any other non-christian religious text?

therationa:

Stimulus,

Matt 1: 16 says the following;

"Jacob was the father of Joseph. Joseph was the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus. Jesus is called the Christ"

So to summarise;

David ------------ Joseph - Jesus

therationa:

According to this account Mary is not related to David.

therationa:

Mary is Joseph's wife.

therationa:

What are you talking about? Lukes account also does not have Mary on the tree.

The birth-line of the Son of God, Jesus Christ can both be traced through Mary and Joseph.  The genealogy of Jesus through Mary is what you find in Luke 3:23-38 and His genealogy through Joseph can be found in Matt.1:1-16

Mary's father Heli Lk.3:23 had no sons but had daughters and as the custom is for the husband of Mary to become the legal son of Heli since women are never reckoned in genealogies.  So Joseph took the place of Mary in this genealogy which is the natural line traced back to Adam.  Jesus' genealogy could also be traced through Joseph in Matt.1:16 which is the royal line this begins at the source of the dynasty and ends with Jesus Christ.

As it is clear that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary before Mary conceived, the immaculate conception took place in Luke 1:35 where the Holy Spirit 'overshadowed' Mary preventing Mary's sinful nature to pass unto that 'Holy thing' who was to be known as the Son of God.  Thus, the only begotten of the Father.

Luke 1:47 This verse disproves the theory of the immaculate conception or the total absence of original sin in Mary as taught in the RCC and referenced by Ndipe.  If God was her Saviour then she must have been a sinner in order to be saved.  It is another fallacy that Mary did not consumate her marriage after the birth of Jesus, as she had four sons and at least three daughters Luke 8:19; Matt.13:55-56; Mark 6:3; Matt.1:25; Lk.2:7; Psalms 69:8-9; Matt. 12:46-50; Mk.3:31-35; Lk.8:19-21; Jn.2:12; 7:3-10; Acts.1:14; Gal. 1:19;

I had to go to this extent so as to disprove the false doctrines which was started by the pagans in the church in their attempt to raise the profile of Mary from a mere 'handmaid of the Lord' Lk.1:38 to that of mother of God and to invest her with divine powers as a goddess.  Hence, preparing the way for identifying her as the goddess of paganism, who is supposed to be the mother of a divine son, and who is yet a virgin.  Such as Isis, the mother of Horus who is depicted to be always with a son in her arms.  It is no surprise that the adherents from the other religion have the misconception that Christians believe in God the Father, the Mother and the Son as trinity.

imhotep:

@therationa
Jesus knows His true lineage. He did have to rely on Jewish genealogists to inform Him.

therationa:


My Goodness. This is breathtakingly bizarre. I thought Jesus was also god. How could a god not have known and had to rely of Jewis genealogist. Are you making it up as you go along?

imhotep:

, In the book of Hebrews, Jesus is compared to Melchizedek.

The author of Heb 7:3 affirms of Melchizedek: "He is without father or mother or genealogy; he has neither beginning of days nor end of life . . . he continues a priest forever."

Bastage:

Maybe this will clarify things:

"The two accounts cannot be harmonized and today the genealogy accounts are generally taken to be "theological" constructs."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus

Scholars have thrashed this out

davidylan:

I look forward to the day you people will come up with something more valid than wikipedia entries.
Scholars have thrashed this out and we already know which of the genealogies belong to Joseph and which is Mary's.

Bastage:

Which scholars?

Try the majority of those who are considered educated in the World of Sanity.

If you check the Wikipedia page instead of just inanely blathering about it, you'll see endorsements by such luminaries as Howard.W.Clarke - Professor Emiritus of The University of California. Or what about Graham Stanton - Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University?

Grasping at straws? One for Joseph and one for Mary? Even though logically it either proves that the Bible contains utter irrelevancies or that Jesus had webbed toes because he was one interbred freak? Yeah. I'll lend you the straws when I've finished with them. After all - you need them way more.

Bastage:

If the two trees belonged to Mary and Joseph (which they don't), Jesus Christ would be nothing more than the result of interbreeding.

Oh hang on. God was his father. That means that Joseph's tree is totally and utterly irrelevant. Nice of the Bible's authors to include something in a "the Book of Truth" that isn't worth a crap then, isn't it?

Bastage:

If you check the Wikipedia page instead of just inanely blathering about it, you'll see endorsements by such luminaries as Howard.W.Clarke - Professor Emiritus of The University of California. Or what about Graham Stanton - Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University?

So if i go and put up a wikipedia entry on how stupid the bible is, it will become holy grail to you?

Bastage:

So if Wikipedia has a page on the General Theory of Relativaty and a link to Einstien, we can treat it as trash then can we?

I'd put way more faith into Wikipedia than I would The Bible. At least the former is generally updated and corrected when errors are noted.