Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
God probably knew he would only have to worry about 'Luke's incompetence' in recording Christ's lineage for 2000 years ... when you would come along and straighten everything out.
Luke listed Jesus' mother's side, his maternal side.
Matthew listed Jesus' father's side, his paternal side.
Luke would have used the temple public records as Matthew would have.
There is No Scripture stating the temple records were totally complete, but complete enough that Jesus genelogy is broken down into three sets showing Jesus' family line. No one living back then challenged his line. Those records stood until the year 70 when the Roman armies destroyed the temple along with its records. That is why the Jewish people can no longer trace their line back to Adam.- Luke 3 v 38.
No one challenged what Ezra wrote starting at 1st Chronicles 1 v 1 with the Jewish ancestral list which also included Adam as a real person.
Luke listed Jesus' mother's side, his maternal side.
Matthew listed Jesus' father's side, his paternal side.
90% of Joseph's and Mary's genealogies are exactly the same. That would make their marriage nearly incestuous. Don't you find this rather odd? Of course you do, unless you are a Fundamentalist.
90% of Joseph's and Mary's genealogies are exactly the same. That would make their marriage nearly incestuous. Don't you find this rather odd? Of course you do, unless you are a Fundamentalist.
We all trace back to Noah and one of his three sons.
It was not until the time of the Constitution of the Mosaic law that close marriage changed.
Remember: At first mankind had human perfection of having a perfectly healthy sound heart, mind and body.
As mankind's health declined there was a need for a different law.
Adam and Eve's first children would have married a sister, brother, cousin or possible aunt or uncle.
There certainly was enough generations from the time of Shealtiel [ Matthew 1 v 12; 1st Chron 3 v 17; Luke 3 v 27 ] that by the time of Mary and Joseph there would not have been a close blood connection.
Also, in their record keeping a 'son-in-law' was considered as a son. Such as: Luke 3 v 23 'son' is really his 'son-in-law '
Fact is, writers 2000 years ago didn't view the construction of things like genealogies the way we do today; and didn't view the need for slavish accuracy in recounting tales or reconciling the details of history (those tendencies are a modern, post-Enlighentment phenomenon). Matthew and Luke selected the names they did to make a point, not just to echo back the "factually accurate" genealogies of the Messiah back to the origins of humankind.
I believe fundamentalists of all stripes fall into error when they attempt to view things like these genealogies (or the creation myths in Genesis) through a modern lens: modern history's primary goal is to reflect events as accurately as possible; this is a fruit of the enlightenment ... and as much as fundamentalists would like to deny it, belief systems like creationism and intelligent design that specialize in "far-fetched reasoning" are much a product of the enlightenment as the anti-theology of Richard Dawkins ... as are the attempts to reconcile the lists in Matthew and Luke as though they were intended by the authors to be accurate renditions of historical events (or the similar attempts to "harmonize" the gospel accounts where they disagree ... in particular the Gospel of John vs the synoptics, which don't mention the disciple Jesus loved among many other things).
Yes, Luke "got it wrong" ... but I have to wonder if his response to you all pointing this out to him would be, "But that's not my point ..."
I was quoting ancient warrior's post. And if you read what I've said, I'm basically denying that scripture needs to be read as literal history in a modern sense, not just making a claim about Luke.
This problem arises because we expect an author writing a genealogy almost 2,000 years ago to be doing it in the same way and for the same purposes we do it today. That wasn't the case, either with Matthew or Luke. Neither were writing exhaustive, point-by-point genealogies to qualify for ancestry.com.
Luke listed Jesus' mother's side, his maternal side.
Matthew listed Jesus' father's side, his paternal side.
Luke would have used the temple public records as Matthew would have.
There is No Scripture stating the temple records were totally complete, but complete enough that Jesus genelogy is broken down into three sets showing Jesus' family line. No one living back then challenged his line. Those records stood until the year 70 when the Roman armies destroyed the temple along with its records. That is why the Jewish people can no longer trace their line back to Adam.- Luke 3 v 38.
No one challenged what Ezra wrote starting at 1st Chronicles 1 v 1 with the Jewish ancestral list which also included Adam as a real person.
RESPONCE:
>>Luke listed Jesus' mother's side, his maternal side.<<
There are several obvious problems with that explanation.
It was thought that the entire offspring existed in the fathers' "seed" (Gr. sperma). The woman's body only nourished the offspring if she was "fertile" or not if she was barren.
Accordingly, Jewish genealogy only passed through males. (See if you can find any exception in the Old Testament).
Today we recognize the absence of the "Y" chromosone in a female. Therefore, if there was no male involved and Jesus came from David's blood by way of Mary, Jesus would have lacked the "Y" chromosone and been female.
Still, most importantly, 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles are specific. The messiah had to be a biological descendent of BOTH David and Solomon. Nathan wasn't in that lineage and never was a king of Isreal. Hence the David-Nathan-Mary claim would be contradictory to scripture.
I cannot create grids on this post so one has to read vertically instead of horizontally, but notice that Matthew uses Solomon's lineage while Luke, for some odd reason, resorts to Nathan the prophet who warned David about his sin with Bathsheba.
There's only one Nathan that existed in that day? It's probably another Nathan. Another erroneous unfounded assumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Call me a liar and a troublemaker. But if there ARE obvious errors, what is so unChristian with pointing them out and asking for a rational explanation instead of trying to evade or cover up the truth?"
Because this is all that you do.
Because you choose to lean on your own understanding instead of the Bible that God provides.
Because if someone gives a reasonable answer you continue to stand on your faulty assumptions instead of trusting that God knows what's in His word.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
