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.
I heard that explanation also, one of the books speaks of lineage from Mary's side and the other from Joseph's. But was it ok to do it from a woman's side I wonder, in those days, where they were used to mostly list men in their listings. Unless of course this book was written during the times when Mary was considered a Mother of God and revered as a Saint...
Remember....Matthew's Gospel was focused on Jesus as King -- the fulfillment of the Jewish scriptures. Luke focused on him as being the savior of mankind--Jews and Gentiles both. They have different purposes.
10-23-2013, 01:27 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I agree...."why" doesn't mean anything. The question is if there is really a contradiction.
Joseph does not have 2 fathers. there are a few theories of why there are 2 names listed -- one seems to be a lineage of Mary,while the other is of Joseph's.
And those 'theories' are not based on anything from the written text. Nothing in the text makes it 'seem' that it is Mary's genealogy. It is the very fact that the verses as they stand contradict one another and as such is the reason why you and others go seaching for 'theories' in the first place.
Quote:
Joseph was called the "son of" Mary's lineage. You need to keep in mind the people writing, and the style of writing. A geneology was not like what we might think of a geneology today. It lists key ancestors--but it may not be intended to be a perfect chronological listing of every male ancestor of Joseph.
Whether there are gaps in the geneaology is besides the point for neither line up with any generation to explain where either Heli or Jacob fit in as an ancestor of Joseph.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,925,051 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
And those 'theories' are not based on anything from the written text. Nothing in the text makes it 'seem' that it is Mary's genealogy. It is the very fact that the verses as they stand contradict one another and as such is the reason why you and others goe seaching for 'theories' in the first place.
Whether there are gaps in the geneaology is besides the point for neither line up with any generation to explain where either Heli or Jacob fit in as an ancestor of Joseph.
Shiloh give it up.
No Christian can explain what's written cuz it is a contradiction. If any Christian especially your pastor were to ever admit that it's a contraction, all of a sudden the belief in inerrancy of the Bible is at risk.
Which of course then would would bring into the question the whole belief system.
It does appear to be a contradiction but from what I remember Luke provided the genealogy through the ancestry of Mary and Matthew the genealogy through descent from Solomon to Joseph (Joseph being Jesus's legal father in a secular sense as an adoptive father). Luke apparently was referring to Heli as the father of Mary and her husband, Joseph, could rightly be called son (son in law) whereas Matthew rightly calls Jacob the father of Joseph with Jacob being the natural father of Joseph. Luke also does this in Luke 3:27 where he describes the relationship between Shealtiel and Neri referring to Shealtiel as the son (instead of son in law) of Neri.
If there is more research done one would probably disccover how the people of Jesus day referred to sons in law (as in sons or sons in law). However even today one refers to in laws as mom and dad and they call a son- in- law "son" and I don't think that is uncommon or unusual.
Exactly, people shouldn't make a contradiction claim without fully understanding things like context and the culture. Just because it appears contradictory on the surface doesn't mean it is a biblical mistake.
10-23-2013, 01:38 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
Shiloh give it up.
No Christian can explain what's written cuz it is a contradiction. If any Christian especially your pastor were to ever admit that it's a contraction, all of a sudden the belief in inerrancy of the Bible is at risk.
Which of course then would would bring into the question the whole belief system.
Yes, I agree. It is just fun watching them squirm around unable to admit such a simple contradiction without looking like performers in Cirque du Solei.
10-23-2013, 01:41 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by txdave35
Exactly, people shouldn't make a contradiction claim without fully understanding things like context and the culture. Just because it appears contradictory on the surface doesn't mean it is a biblical mistake.
What in the context ameliorates the contradiction? This is so simple - the verses AS THEY ARE WRITTEN CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER. Mary is not mentioned in the context at all.
And those 'theories' are not based on anything from the written text. Nothing in the text makes it 'seem' that it is Mary's genealogy. It is the very fact that the verses as they stand contradict one another and as such is the reason why you and others go seaching for 'theories' in the first place.
Whether there are gaps in the geneaology is besides the point for neither line up with any generation to explain where either Heli or Jacob fit in as an ancestor of Joseph.
As I stated--I really think it's a case of you imposing your view of what a geneology is on the text.
And those 'theories' are not based on anything from the written text. Nothing in the text makes it 'seem' that it is Mary's genealogy. It is the very fact that the verses as they stand contradict one another and as such is the reason why you and others go seaching for 'theories' in the first place.
Do you even bother to consider translation factors in your approach? Maybe a modern day definition of a word isn't the same as the ancient definition, ya know.
No Christian can explain what's written cuz it is a contradiction. If any Christian especially your pastor were to ever admit that it's a contraction, all of a sudden the belief in inerrancy of the Bible is at risk.
Which of course then would would bring into the question the whole belief system.
It's not a contradiction.
Honestly...do you REALLY think that no one smart enough to compare the 2 Gospels was alive when they were written and point out this "contradiction" as you say it is? Are you that much smarter than the people alive in 60 AD?
10-23-2013, 01:44 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by txdave35
Do you even bother to consider translation factors in your approach? Maybe a modern day definition of a word isn't the same as the ancient definition, ya know.
Of course, please enlighten me - what it is that you think will resolve this contradiction?
By the way I used to be a christian who studied the Bible vigorously.
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.
