Posted by Carlos on June 04, 1998 at 15:40:33:
In Reply to: Had you read my post, I showed your link to be baseless. Is that all you have? N/T posted by blue on June 04, 1998 at 14:37:41:
:
: : I offer this commentary from This web site. I strongly suspect further discussion will prove fruitless, so this is my last post on the matter.
: : JESUS' GENEALOGIES--One of the most discussed contradictions in freethought literature is the clash between the genealogies of
: : Jesus found in Matt. 1 and Luke 3. One need only read the text to see that Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus from Jesus back to
: : Adam and God while Matthew begins with Abraham and tracks it to Jesus. Luke lists 77 generations while Matthew has only 44. In
: : order to see the problem in proper perspective one should create a chart listing the names in correct sequence in parallel columns. If
: : horizontal lines are drawn to connect the same names, one can easily see that the lists are almost identical from Abraham to David.
: : However, from David onward there is no similarity despite the fact that they both conclude with Joseph as the father of Jesus. The
: : major reason for the contradictory names given after David is that the account in Luke traces the genealogy through David's son,
: : Nathan, while that in Matthew traces it through another son, Solomon. This would easily account for the wide divergence in names
: : following David but raises a couple of crucial questions: (a) How could Joseph and Jesus be descended from two different sons of
: : David. How could two sons of David father two completely different genealogies which merge together with the last two individuals
: : and (b) How could Jesus have contradictory genealogies? Few apologists deny differences exist so that's not in dispute. The real issue
: : revolves around the common explanation given by most biblicists for two widely different genealogies of the same man. Their strategy
: : hinges on a rather simple ploy. Jesus' genealogy is allegedly traced through Joseph in Matthew and Mary in Luke. Unfortunately for
: : them, the shortcomings in their rationalization are equally simple. First, Mary's name is nowhere to be found in Luke's genealogy.
: : Everybody's name is mentioned but hers. Imagine a genealogy in which every name is mentioned but that of the person whose lineage
: : is being traced! Second, there is no genealogical record of any woman in the entire Bible. Are we to believe Mary is an exception?
: : Third, Joseph's name is mentioned in Luke's genealogy so one can reasonably conclude that it's his lineage, not Mary's. Fourth, and
: : last, according to OT prophecy, the Messiah would be a physical descendant of David. Mary appears to have been from the house of
: : Levi, not David, since her cousin, Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) was a daughter of Aaron (Luke 1:5), i.e., from the house of Levi. If Mary was
: : from the house of Aaron, how could either genealogy be hers since they relate David's lineage? On the other hand, Luke 1:27 and 2:4
: : show Joseph was of Davidic descent. The attempt to attribute Luke's genealogy to Mary is one of the more transparent subterfuges
: : employed by dishonest apologists. Desperation set in because they just couldn't think of any other rationalization.
: : Another reason for their devious ploy is that it solves a problem created by the Virgin Birth. According to prophecy the Messiah must
: : be a physical descendant of David. If Jesus' only connection to David is through Joseph, then Jesus couldn't be physically connected
: : to David because the birth was virginal; Joseph was not his biological father. So apologists must attribute one of the genealogies to
: : Mary in order to extend a physical connection from Jesus to David. Hence, the rationalization. One can only wonder why they didn't
: : apply the genealogy in Matthew to Mary instead of the one in Luke since one is no more applicable to her than the other.
[ Follow Ups ] [ Exmormon.org- Honest Inquiry Message Board ] [ FAQ ]