noah

I was reading Louis cable's article entitled "Would You Buy A Used Car From Paul?" and I was struck by the apparent contradictions he popints out beween Paul, Revelations and the Gospels of Luke and Mathew:

Romans 1:3 ~ "Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh," says Paul. Although this statement agrees fully with the one made by Jesus in Revelation 22:16, it flies in the face of everything we are told in the gospels. In Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 we learn that Mary was made pregnant with Jesus not by Joseph, who was of the Davidic line, but by the Holy Ghost. This creates a really big problem for Bible believers. First, although Joseph was of David's line, he was not Jesus' biological father. Second, the Holy Ghost is a spirit and spirits have neither flesh nor blood. Third, "according to the flesh" could not have been referring to Mary's flesh because she was not from David's line. According to the story, she was of the house of Aaron (Luke 1:5), a Levite. So, if the birth narratives are to be believed, Jesus did not come from the seed of David, and Paul told another big lie. If, on the other hand, Revelation 22:16 is true and Paul is right, the writers of Matthew and Luke lied.

I asked a Christian friend about this discrepancy. Here is his reply:

“In the days of Herod, king of Ju·de´a, there happened to be a certain priest named Zech·a·ri´ah of the division of A·bi´jah, and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.� (Lu 1:5)
Second, it was Jehovah God's holy spirit, so the parentage was at least ok (!) by bible standards:
“. . .[son] of God. � (Lu 3:38)
Third, Luke's genealogy is significantly different from Matthew's. One explanation is that it represents Mary's line, making her a Judahite. Not necessary, since both fathers were of the house out of which Shiloh was to come (Gen 49:10), but a nice touch on the part of Jehovah.

I'd like to know what you all think of this.

Thanks,

Chris Weimer

His reply didn't make sense.

noah

That's what I told him. He said he didn't really care what the article said because to him every word of the bible is true and all the books are in harmony. Guess what? He's a Jehovah's Witness. He then went on to tell me how evil all my sources were and that one day the brownshirts would be coming to get us all. I think he may be finally losing it.

Regards,

Chris Weimer

Yep. :|

Dharma

The lineage of Jesus from David was made up by the Christ cult by Christian missionaries to try to convert Jews into the Christ cult. This failed attempt to combine the Roman/Judaic religious elements became what is known as Christianity. There was an attempt by Paul to make Christianity more Abrahamic, despite Jesus claiming he was better than Abraham, "before Abraham, was I"

The Jesus cult was separately known as the Nazarenes, the Christians were a separate cult.

This is similar to some modern day missionaries trying to make Christ into the predicted Vishnu Avatar to convert the Hindus.

Missionaries try to either insult your religion or try to equate your religion, whatever it takes to convert you.

noah

I think you make some very telling points. I just read an article about the Christian missionaries in India. It's not a pretty picture. More of an outrage really.

John A. Broussard

I can see why the lineage of Jesus was important in the early years of christianity, since there was a serious attempt then to convert Jews, but what's the point, now?

If Jesus is god, what difference does it make what his ancestry is?

Sparrow

If we're unsure about his ancestry, which would have been easy for people of the time to document, why are we sure he was a god?

If one can screw up naming his ancestors, couldn't one also screw up in describing miracles or the resurrection?

noah

Good point! :thumbs:

judge

There is a theory that Matthews gospel conatins Mary's lineage. An Aramaic word is said to have been mistranslated.

The use of orbg in classical and contemporary Aramaic thought.