Kosh

Here, let me point it out specifically so that you can see it:

Luke says that Joseph's father was Heli. And Mathew says it was Jacob. Are they both correct? Is one of them wrong?

NOWHERE is Mary mentioned in that line. So where do you get that Mary's father was "eli" (assuming you meant Heli).

BTW, when I read "the supposed son of", all I see is doubt as to who the father was, not affirmation that it was God!

Secular Pinoy

Until you can show where in Luke 3:23 you can find the name of Mary (or 11 times in the genealogy), your argument is nothing more than apologetic gymnastics.

Magus55

I've posted it before, but read this:

http://www.carm.org/diff/2geneologies.htm

None of you are taking into account the time period and writing style. Jewish geneologies went through the father, which is why Joseph is mentioned instead of Mary in her geneology. You also can notice the difference style of each geneology. Mary's is written from her ("of Joseph") to Adam, while Joseph's geneology is from Abraham to Joseph. They are reversed. Luke also wasn't directing his geneology to the jews, Matthew was, so Matthew focused on the legal geneology of Jesus' step father, while Luke mentioned Mary's.

As the link i posted points out, I'm sure the authors of the Bible and those who made it official were well aware of the difference in geneologies, and put them in anyway because they knew there was no problem with them, one is Mary's, one is Joseph's.

You all really make too big a deal out of things, especially since you don't believe in the Bible anyway, so who the heck cares?

Secular Pinoy

You got it backwards. We note the clear reading of the verses in question, while you are twisting it beyond the breaking point in order to preserve your cherished beliefs.

Magus55

Nope, because I see no problem with it. I understand the meaning of the 2 different geneologies. Who are you trying to convince that the Bible is in error and full of contradictions? Iv'e never seen a claim made by atheists that didn't have an explanation, so you still have yet to show me that the Bible is in error. So again, who are you trying to convince? 99% of the people that hear your complaints and attempts at disproving the Bible, already don't believe in it anyway, so whats the point?

Secular Pinoy

This contradiction is already grounds for claiming that there is indeed an error in the bible. Your so-called "understand[ing of] the meaning of the 2 different geneologies" is subjective bias and not based on what the text clearly says. You can freely believe what you want, but you cannot change the fact that the genealogies are inconsistent.

Kosh

So.... by claiming this "legal" geneology, are you implying that all that was necessary to fullfill the "prophecy" was to have been adopted by a heir of David? As pointed out in your link, there should be no "legal" messianic claim of a descendent of Joseph, due to his cursed ancestor. So why should this even be pointed out? And if all you needed was to be adopted, then why should there be any prophecy about David at all? Basically, anybody could have been the messiah, from any bloodline, as long as the got "adopted". Right?

Also, what documentation do you have to backup the claim that the alternate lineage is through Mary? It says Luke in the book. What records do we have to verify that that is Mary's lineage?

If this is all so obvious to you when "thinking" like the Jews, then why don't they (the Jews) believe it?

We do it for the sake of the lurkers, who may not be as keen to the bullshit as we are.

Soul Invictus

What do you mean biological and legal? What's this legal part all about? The two geneologies simply contradict to me. I'd like you to help me see if this idea of a legal lineage has any merit. I'm open...expound on that for me...

Magus55

I mean by legal, because Joseph isn't Jesus' biological parent, only legal parent through marriage. Mary, is Jesus' biological mother. Did you read the link i posted on the last page? It may not sastify your problem with the geneologies, but it at least explains them.

CJD

Come now. At least give me credit for adopting a first-century Christian perspective, like, for example, that of the author of whose work we are now dealing with.

Are you wanting me to cite proof that in the first century earlier generations were regarded as greater and wiser than the one at present? Because that, and the fact that the author himself (i.e., Mark--the capricious pick-and-choose methodology of form criticism notwithstanding) held the Messiah to be the Son of God lead me to think that my reading is closer to the author's intent than yours.

And you would be largely right. First-century messianic expectations sought a military warrior--not a meek passover lamb.

[quote]If thiswas indeed the point Jesus wanted to make in his teaching, I doubt that the average Jewish peasant would have understood that the answer to the question "how can David call him lord?" would be "because the Messiah is also divine somehow."[quote]

All I can gather is that you feel that this is the case. Have you any rational proof for this assertion? Have any scholars going before us offered a rationale similar to yours?

So, since you think he should have gone on to explain himself further, and he didn't, then because he didn't he must not have been talking about how the Messiah, who was a descendent of David, could be called by David "Lord"; rather, he was merely talking about how the Messiah was not a descendent of David at all. It seems you've forgotten the context. To whom was Jesus addressing when he quipped this question? Yes, the hypocritical and unjust religious clergy of Israel. Do the synoptics ever show Jesus being tolerant with them? The reason they were dumbfounded at the end of the pericope is because they recognized that this person knew and understood the Writings of the Tanak better than they did. It is as if the lights turned on in their heads when he spoke (remember, too, that the commoners heard him gladly), and they were ashamed that they had missed it. Given your interpretation, how do you make sense of the surrounding context?

You probably didn't mean offense here, but to me it's as if you've called the kettle black. That is, if you were to clear your own head from its atheistic pre-conceptions, then you might see that Xian presuppositions or no, my interpretation is at least based on rational, historical, and (primary and secondary) textual proof, whereas yours has come, I gather, straight from your armchair and onto this forum.

Regards,

CJD