FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-06-2006, 05:00 AM   #1
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,381
Default Jesus Genealogy contradiction

I know, this is an old recurring topic, but i cant seem to find some answers to some questions.

Were all aware of the genealogical contradictions for Corinthians to Matthew for Abraham to David, and from David to Jesus there exists contradiction from Matthew and Luke.

In my debates, ive encountered a whole range of ways to solve these contradictions

1.Luke is Marys genealogy (the popular one).

2.The contradiction is explainable by the Levirate laws, of which i have refuted the attempt to link Joseph mother marrying into Heli's brother Jacob, as this would still contradict the Genealogies.
Now the claim is of a unnamed and unmentioned tribesmen of Heli's that Josephs mother married into which is of course hard to dispute, for how can you disprove something not mentioned?

Im also aware but not very well informed of various other issues such as Josephs line being 'cursed' in some fashion, excluding his line being of Davids, and heard (from searching this board of previous threads) mention of royal judaic lines not allowing various things like adoption etc, though no one posted the reference to a judaic source for me to look at.

Any thanks is appreciated.

And i wish i joined this board years ago, when it was far more active.
Blui is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 07:44 AM   #2
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blui View Post
I know, this is an old recurring topic, but i cant seem to find some answers to some questions.

Were all aware of the genealogical contradictions for Corinthians to Matthew for Abraham to David, and from David to Jesus there exists contradiction from Matthew and Luke.

In my debates, ive encountered a whole range of ways to solve these contradictions

1.Luke is Marys genealogy (the popular one).

2.The contradiction is explainable by the Levirate laws, of which i have refuted the attempt to link Joseph mother marrying into Heli's brother Jacob, as this would still contradict the Genealogies.
Now the claim is of a unnamed and unmentioned tribesmen of Heli's that Josephs mother married into which is of course hard to dispute, for how can you disprove something not mentioned?

Im also aware but not very well informed of various other issues such as Josephs line being 'cursed' in some fashion, excluding his line being of Davids, and heard (from searching this board of previous threads) mention of royal judaic lines not allowing various things like adoption etc, though no one posted the reference to a judaic source for me to look at.

Any thanks is appreciated.

And i wish i joined this board years ago, when it was far more active.

Once Mary is substituted for Joseph in any of the genealogies, then any name can be substituted for any other person. That is Heli's grandfather may acually be a cousin, or any combination of relatives, or Jacob's father may have been Mary's father. To introduce Mary is opening a 'can of worms'.

Speculation cannot be used as proof. One cannot speculate that one genealogy is wrong, so as make the other one right.

The only facts we have before us is that the genealogies are contradictory.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 10:21 AM   #3
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Matthew was recorded, it tells us that, and so it is hard to argue with that.

Luke's was given after the descend of the dove which makes it inspired and therefore also true.

So we have to look for a way to combine these two which is quite easy if you consider that Luke identifies the son of man instead of the Jew who gave birth to this son of man. This way, the son of David and the son of Abraham will be the same son as the son of Joseph and that will be the same son of God when Christ is born in us as born-again Christian (if that is a phrase you are familiar with).

There are two qualifiers that allow me to do this. The first one is in Matthew 1:16 where Joseph is called the husband of Mary of whom Jesus "who is called the messiah" was born. The second one is from Luke where "it was supposed" that Jesus was the son of Joseph. Both "who is called the Messiah" and "it was supposed" make room for the inference that the Jesus of Matthew was not the Messiah and that the Jesus of Luke was the son of God instead of the son of Joseph. To be sure, "who is called the Messiah" suggests that Jesus was not the Messiah, and "it was supposed [Jesus was] the son of Joseph" suggests that the Jesus of Luke was not the son of Joseph.

So here we have 2 images of Jesus. One is the son of Joseph who was [just] called Messiah and later deserved to be crucified while the other matches the son of David and son of Abraham identity to be set free as son of man (bar-abbas) before the Jesus of Joseph gets crucified.

What's more is that Luke goes past Abraham right back to "son of Adam" to "son of God" to confirm that Mary's son is the first begotten son of man here now reborn in Joseph to show that the Christ (the Messiah) is not the descendant of Abraham but is the son of Abraham as God, which really is the root of Abraham in Judaism.

The question becomes: 'what do we do with Maria?' who cannot have an identity of her own to protect the son of man from sin. She is called the Immaculate Conception for this reason but really is the woman that was taken from man in Gen.2 to become his flesh of flesh and bone of bones and therefore betrothed to the man called Joseph who once was banned from Eden and here now "looked expectantly for the reign of God" -- which he did for good reason as it is presented in Luke 24:50-53.

(As an aside, the "Immaculate Conception" is Maria but is Immaculate to suggest that a not-so-immaculate conception is also possible wherefore there is only one Maria in the same way as there is only one first begotten son who therefore is our mother in heaven and, at least potentially, also on earth. The perpetual virginity follows from this etc.)
Chili is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 12:28 PM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
Default Deconstructing the Two Genealogies

Hi Aa5874,

One can figure out how the two geneologies fit together with the surrounding text and how they came about pretty easily.

The geneology now attached to Matthew was originally attached to the birth narrative that appears in Luke. The Jewish style of the geneology matches the essentially Jewish text at the beginning of Luke. It was originally the geneology of Zaccharia. It is meant to tell us the geneology of John and the story of the birth of John from Zaccharia and Elizabeth was attached to it.

The late Second or early Third century editor detached it from the John story and placed it at the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew. He attached it very absurdly to the little Christ birth story that he himself wrote in order to portray Jesus as the new Moses. In this way, the editor hoped to disguise the fact that it was part of the John birth story that he was editing into a John and Jesus birthstory.

The editor also wanted to trace the geneology of Jesus back to God and Adam. Yet, he did not want to make it look obvious that he was copying the John geneology. He thus made significant changes to the original geneology. He also placed it at the beginning of the Marcionic Gospel text, so it would not seem as if he was copying the Matthew Gospel writer and placing it in the same position.

In this way, one editor was able to create two geneologies out of the Zaccharia geneology and two birth stories out of the single John birth story that he began with. The single editor was very deliberate and very clever in creating two "independent" sources for the geneology and birth of Jesus. This was intended as an answer to the gnostics and Marcion who proclaimed that Jesus/Christ had come from the sky in the form of a dove.

My best guess is that Tertullian did it around 206, but it may have been someone else slightly earlier.

Warmly,

PhilospherJay


Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Once Mary is substituted for Joseph in any of the genealogies, then any name can be substituted for any other person. That is Heli's grandfather may acually be a cousin, or any combination of relatives, or Jacob's father may have been Mary's father. To introduce Mary is opening a 'can of worms'.

Speculation cannot be used as proof. One cannot speculate that one genealogy is wrong, so as make the other one right.

The only facts we have before us is that the genealogies are contradictory.
PhilosopherJay is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 03:27 PM   #5
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay View Post
Hi Aa5874,

One can figure out how the two geneologies fit together with the surrounding text and how they came about pretty easily.

The geneology now attached to Matthew was originally attached to the birth narrative that appears in Luke. The Jewish style of the geneology matches the essentially Jewish text at the beginning of Luke. It was originally the geneology of Zaccharia. It is meant to tell us the geneology of John and the story of the birth of John from Zaccharia and Elizabeth was attached to it.

The late Second or early Third century editor detached it from the John story and placed it at the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew. He attached it very absurdly to the little Christ birth story that he himself wrote in order to portray Jesus as the new Moses. In this way, the editor hoped to disguise the fact that it was part of the John birth story that he was editing into a John and Jesus birthstory.

The editor also wanted to trace the geneology of Jesus back to God and Adam. Yet, he did not want to make it look obvious that he was copying the John geneology. He thus made significant changes to the original geneology. He also placed it at the beginning of the Marcionic Gospel text, so it would not seem as if he was copying the Matthew Gospel writer and placing it in the same position.

In this way, one editor was able to create two geneologies out of the Zaccharia geneology and two birth stories out of the single John birth story that he began with. The single editor was very deliberate and very clever in creating two "independent" sources for the geneology and birth of Jesus. This was intended as an answer to the gnostics and Marcion who proclaimed that Jesus/Christ had come from the sky in the form of a dove.

My best guess is that Tertullian did it around 206, but it may have been someone else slightly earlier.

Warmly,

PhilospherJay
Hi Jay,

Are the substance of the Anti-Marcionite Prologues relevant to this issue at all?

And if so, how do these items fit in to your collage.
Best wishes,


Pete
mountainman is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 04:17 PM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: I'm down here!
Posts: 1,757
Default

My understanding, limited though it is, is that the line of kingship cannot pass through a woman; thus using Mary as the connection to King David and Solomon is inaccurate. Biblically, the right of lineal privilege is passed from father to son exclusively.
Since Joseph comes from the line of Jehoiakim, any child of his is automatically disbarred from rulership.
reddhedd is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 04:40 PM   #7
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Heaven - Switzerland
Posts: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blui View Post
i cant seem to find some answers to some questions
Avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
(Titus 3:9)



A christian knows, what's to do. (But in this forum, we don't find many christian people).

Whatever, maybe you can read - or find - something interesting here (you find here some christian-apologetic points of view):
http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/Genealogy.htm
http://www.frontline-apologetics.com...almud_mary.htm

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesgen.html

And...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm (the catholic encyclopedia point of view)

Namasté
ElijahSix is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 07:27 PM   #8
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay View Post
The geneology now attached to Matthew was originally attached to the birth narrative that appears in Luke. The Jewish style of the geneology matches the essentially Jewish text at the beginning of Luke. It was originally the geneology of Zaccharia. It is meant to tell us the geneology of John and the story of the birth of John from Zaccharia and Elizabeth was attached to it.
It is true that John was the son of man (also known as the favorite apostle later introduced as Mary's son), but there is no way that Luke could present both of them because the Annunciation to Mary came across to Joseph as a dream and you can't have dream and an inspiration from the same source because dreams are downloaded via an angel of the Lord into the conscious mind where Joseph was at. Mary was no dreamer (far from it) but she was the dream for Joseph to live. That is why she was betrothed to him in the divine marriage of true minds (sonnets) wherein Joseph received the promise that was retained in the TOL by the woman here called Mary. Anything beyond that would violate the Immaculate Conception and just another child would have been from her mother's womb untimely ripped.

The birth of John takes place in the netherworld (read subconscious mind) where Elizabeth and Zachariah were from. They represent the entropy of Joseph's lineage that was generated long before him and now bears fruit through the loyalty and integrity of Joseph the upright Jew . . . wherefore Elizabeth sprang in joy to hear that Mary was to bare a man-child.
Quote:

The late Second or early Third century editor detached it from the John story and placed it at the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew. He attached it very absurdly to the little Christ birth story that he himself wrote in order to portray Jesus as the new Moses. In this way, the editor hoped to disguise the fact that it was part of the John birth story that he was editing into a John and Jesus birthstory.
That may be so but it belongs in Matthew where the pool of riches that engendered the faith of Joseph was transformed into living water that was needed to prepare Jesus for the baptism of fire. In this sense is water the evidence of involution that must precede enlightenment as if by fire. It makes reference to 'the hills in Zaccaria's land with mountain tops to conquer and a sea of toneless intuition representing the reign of God to walk on and go by.
Quote:


The editor also wanted to trace the geneology of Jesus back to God and Adam. Yet, he did not want to make it look obvious that he was copying the John geneology. He thus made significant changes to the original geneology. He also placed it at the beginning of the Marcionic Gospel text, so it would not seem as if he was copying the Matthew Gospel writer and placing it in the same position.
That kind of renders Catholicism a non-Abrahamic religion.
Quote:

In this way, one editor was able to create two geneologies out of the Zaccharia geneology and two birth stories out of the single John birth story that he began with. The single editor was very deliberate and very clever in creating two "independent" sources for the geneology and birth of Jesus. This was intended as an answer to the gnostics and Marcion who proclaimed that Jesus/Christ had come from the sky in the form of a dove.

PhilospherJay
Two genealogies are needed for the mother to become the bride of the groom. Mary and Jesus are of "this generation" so it can happen to us while the reign of God spans many generations in the heavens.
Chili is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 04:54 AM   #9
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay View Post
One can figure out how the two geneologies fit together with the surrounding text and how they came about pretty easily.

The geneology now attached to Matthew was originally attached to the birth narrative that appears in Luke. The Jewish style of the geneology matches the essentially Jewish text at the beginning of Luke. It was originally the geneology of Zaccharia. It is meant to tell us the geneology of John and the story of the birth of John from Zaccharia and Elizabeth was attached to it.

The late Second or early Third century editor detached it from the John story and placed it at the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew. He attached it very absurdly to the little Christ birth story that he himself wrote in order to portray Jesus as the new Moses. In this way, the editor hoped to disguise the fact that it was part of the John birth story that he was editing into a John and Jesus birthstory.

The editor also wanted to trace the geneology of Jesus back to God and Adam. Yet, he did not want to make it look obvious that he was copying the John geneology. He thus made significant changes to the original geneology. He also placed it at the beginning of the Marcionic Gospel text, so it would not seem as if he was copying the Matthew Gospel writer and placing it in the same position.

In this way, one editor was able to create two geneologies out of the Zaccharia geneology and two birth stories out of the single John birth story that he began with. The single editor was very deliberate and very clever in creating two "independent" sources for the geneology and birth of Jesus. This was intended as an answer to the gnostics and Marcion who proclaimed that Jesus/Christ had come from the sky in the form of a dove.
Umm, PhilospherJay, evidence for any of this apparent conjecture?

One can say immediately two things:
  1. the genealogies are of different grammatical structures and in reverse order, suggesting different authors and
  2. they both cover the male line from David to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, but via different trajectories, again suggesting different tradition trajectories and therefore different authors.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 05:29 AM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
Default Exactly the Opposite

Hi Spin,

The fact that the genealogies are in reverse order demonstrates that the writer of the second geneology knew the first geneology. Since there are thousands of different ways that the second geneology could have been given, reversal may be given as a positive sign of knowledge. For example if I find a piece of paper with the number 72581 written on it and next to it a piece of paper with the number 18527, I can be reasonably certain that the writer of one of the papers knew the writer of the first, if they were not both written by the same person.

The use of Sheatiel and Zerubbabel in both proves either two traditions or copying of one from the other. Given that neither geneology comes with a source for any tradition, and establishment of a source would have been important to establishing the veracity of the text, it is reasonably certain that one was copied from the other.

Warmly,

Philospher Jay


Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Umm, PhilospherJay, evidence for any of this apparent conjecture?

One can say immediately two things:
  1. the genealogies are of different grammatical structures and in reverse order, suggesting different authors and
  2. they both cover the male line from David to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, but via different trajectories, again suggesting different tradition trajectories and therefore different authors.


spin
PhilosopherJay is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:51 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.