Orthodox_Freethinker

The geneologies are incomplete but not innaccurate. If a genaration here or there is missed, that isn't a real problem.

Yes, all the time, especially from www.jesusneverexisted.com
This site is a personal favorite, mostly since it makes atheists look like lunatics. :Cheeky:

blt to go

And I agree. What is more troubling to me, is how did two, supposedly independent authors, feel required to use Bethlehem and Nazareth for, respectively, birth and place he was raised. Even to the point, as you rightly indicated, of forcing the story a bit, and resulting in contradicting each other. Especially in light of the other similarities, which seem to be required, and other details forced to fit the facts, if you will.
Thank you for the input, Diogenes the Cynic. I would agree that birth narratives would be interesting to people. However, the subsequent development of childhood narratives (and even letters allegedly written by Jesus) demonstrate that people would be just as interested in more than Birth narratives. Perhaps it is an unanswerable question, but it seems strange that both Matthew and Luke, independently, felt extensive writing was necessary (even to appease people) on the birth, but could then safely ignore childhood, teenage years, and young adulthood and safely skip to his ministry.

True. UNLESS one wants to state that Luke relied upon Matthew. Then the multiple nativity stories seems troublesome. And due to the lack of details in Mark and Paul, it is curious (and possibly we are simply unable to determine) where these specific elements came from.
I agree. I didn’t want to get into the contradictions or difficulties of Nazareth, its meaning OR its existence, but rather why both felt they were stuck (for lack of a better word) with having Jesus raised in Nazareth. I am not entirely convinced that Mark had Nazareth, or whether it was added later after Matthew became known. “of Nazareth of Galilee� is awkward. Perhaps, though, it is as simple as needing a Davidic descendant born in Bethlehem, and stating true to Mark.
The only birth, I recall, foretold by angels was Isaac. This seems (to me) to be too much 20-20 hindsight on a remarkable coincidence. There are too many other possible messengers, like priests, or burning bushes, or winds, or voices, or dreams, or visions, or talking snakes, etc. That both Matthew and Luke happen to fall on angles as the messengers would be remarkable; it is more likely there was an underlying reason for it.

O.K. But what are Matthew’s sources? Not assertion, but proof. What are Luke’s sources? Not assertion but proof. Why the similarities? Why the contradictions? (How does one hide from king in Nazareth, and yet travel to Jerusalem every year?) I really don’t want to bother with arguing the contradictions. There are plenty of threads on that, and even an article or two. As Diogenes the Cynic rightly states, it is the similarities that make the story interesting, not the contradictions.

Orthodox_Freethinker

What you call 'hopelessly contradictory stories', I call independent attestation. To each his own.

Then it is good to know that claiming of substantial contradictions would be intellectually dishonest.

Jesus entered the line of David by adoption, not by blood.

Mark
35
6 As Jesus was teaching in the temple area he said, "How do the scribes claim that the Messiah is the son of David?
36
David himself, inspired by the holy Spirit, said: 'The Lord said to my lord, "Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies under your feet."'
37
David himself calls him 'lord'; so how is he his son?" (The) great crowd heard this with delight.

Isaiah 9:6 shows that the Messiah would be God incarnate, something which would imply a virgin birth.

FatherMithras

Yes it is, due to the significance of 14 steps, these geneologies appear deliberately faked.


You completely and utterly failed to understand my post. OP means opening post, and your remarks had been adressed in replies after that.

Lunatics? Of course not. That's the fringe. But they do bring alot of evidence that shows the illegitimacy of writings about Jesus, and the fact he's been almost entirely myth-ized, especially with respect to pagan dieties.

blt to go

Julian, they would have to add Luke 1:27, too. And, if we can interlope a few verses, this is the only passage that refers to angelic messengers. By inserting the angel, we lose virgin birth AND angels as a common element.

Any proof of interpolation, anyone?

Orthodox_Freethinker

Kenneth Humphreys obviously has a personal vendetta against religious faith.
There is a difference between disbelief in a personal God and hatred against Christianity, something which I hope most atheists don't possess.
Claiming that a historical Jesus of Nazareth never existed is the ultimate red herring. It's like how creationists attempt to ignore the evidence for biological evolution by insisting that the earth is 6,000 years old.

Orthodox_Freethinker

The oldest manuscripts of the Gospels are close enough in time to the original authographs as to not have allowed substantial interpolation to occur.
The oldest available manuscripts of Plato, for example, were written hundreds of years after the originals and yet modern scholarship consider them mostly trustworthy.

Diogenes the Cynic

Explain the contradictions then. Where did Joseph and Mary live before Jesus was born? Was Jesus born during the reign of Herod or during the census of Quirinius? Did Jesus go to Egypt after the the birth or did he go straight back to Nazareth? Did they already live in Nazareth before the birth as Luke claims) or did they move there to avoid Herod's son in Judea (as Matthew claims)?
I haven't just claimed them, I've shown you what they are. Explain them.
Adoption doesn't count under Jewish laws of royal succession.
I don't know what you think this proves but it refutes nothing about Jewish laws of succession or Jewish Messianic requirements.
It uses that term figuratively, not literally. The Jewish Messiah is just a human king, not God. Like I said, the Messiah is REQUIRED to be a direct linear descendant of David. Adoption doesn't count. The mother doesn't count.

blt to go

Excuse me for trying to get this back on track (I REALLY want to talk about where the similarities come from, not the contradictions. The only thing important about the contradictions, that I am focusing on, is the trouble it would cause for the claim Luke relied upon Matthew.)

I know the contradictions are juicy and fun and all, but.......

Orthodox Freethinker, perhaps rather than spending your time giving assertions we have heard numerous times before in an attempt to resolve the contradictions, you could answer this question:
I'll give you apparent contradictions, but I am still looking for an answer.

Orthodox_Freethinker

The 'contradictions' are superficial and unimportant.

Some Preliminary and Informed Speculation on the Formation and Validity of the Birth Narratives
J. P. Holding
http://www.tektonics.org/af/birthnarr.html


"Since Jesus was born of a virgin, this disqualify him as being Messiah (2 Samuel 7:12, Acts 2:30).
Answer: People who were adopted were considered "sons", and their "seed" throughout history. Even today, when people are adopted, they are considered part of the blood line in family trees, and take the family name, and inherit family fortunes as if they were the "seed".

Matthew 1:23, "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son," The writers of the New Testament understood that in order to be a "son", one need not be a physical descendant."
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/geneology.html

"Genealogies in the Bible were never based on women, only the men’s side.
Answer: Tracing the genealogy on the maternal side was unusual but, so was the virgin birth. Matthew traces the family line of Mary. Matthew 1:16 does mention Mary’s name, so Mary is specifically mentioned in Jesus’ genealogy. Numbers 27:1-11 and 36:1-12 give Scriptural precedent for the substitution of Joseph's name in Lk 3:23. At the same time it avoids the judgment spoken of in Jer 22:28-30. Man and wife are one flesh, and both are known by the same name. God called both Adam and Eve "Adam" (Gen.5:2). Joseph and Mary could have been known as "Joseph", just has Adam and Eve were known as "Adam".

Although Matthew's genealogy does mention women (Mary, Ruth, Thamar, Rachab, and Bathsheba - the wife of Urias), notice that the line of the genealogy is strictly through the male names. So our Lord's descendancy as traced through His human mother would first state that He is Son of Joseph since Joseph was Mary's husband - the male. Then the genealogy would properly move to Mary's side of the family and begin with the male of the next generation related to our Lord through Mary: Luke 3:23 ff "son of Heli" (on Mary's side who is) "the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of (another) Joseph...." (etc.)."
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/geneology.html

Then you've missed the point. How could the Messiah be the son of David if he is also David's Lord?

How could a child 'figuratively' be the Mighty God? Such a claim to 'figurative' divinity would be blasphemous.

If you honestly believe this, please look up Psa. 2:7, 11; 45: 6-7, 11; 72:8; 102:24-27; 89:26-27; 110:1; Isa. 9:6; 25:9; 40:10; Jer. 23:6; Micah 5:2; Mal 8:1.