smokester

Asha'man quote
me
The only way I can resolve the obvious contradictions is that both accounts are talking about a different Jesus boy----who actually existed----and later became fused into the adult Jesus of the gospels.
That's my question. And, yes, for argument sake I'm asking you to take this supposition seriously.
Would the writers have believed in the possibility of transmigration of souls?

Johnny Skeptic

As far as James Holding and a lot of other Christians are concerned, it has been settled. Consider the following:

http://www.tektonics.org/sab/sabmatt.html

James Holding

Omission of names and telescoping was normal. See http://www.tektonics.org/af/exodline.html, and see http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html, and http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesgen.html for the variation in names, and for issues in the next several cites.

Johnny: So you see, smokester, James Holding and Glenn Miller are not in the least bit deterred by the two different genealogies.

I am still trying to get you to understand that it doesn't make any difference whether there is one genealogy, or two genealogies. If all that we had was Mary's genealogy, it would not be of any value whatsoever to Christians. I challenge Christians to prove otherwise.

Doug Shaver

I see. And "born a descendant of David" would not have implied that? Because some people believed David could have had some descendants who were not human?

smokester

Johnny Skeptic quote
me
You don't have to convince----I agree.
So the question remains why did the writers put in genealogies. Were they stupid, reckless in supporting some Christology, dishonest, telling stroies, or was there a real purpose behind the two different genealogies.

Amaleq13

That is not the "only way" you can resolve the obvious contradictions but it is apparently the only way you are apparently willing to attempt a resolution. Another resolution of the "problem" is to recognize they are expressions of faith, not attempts to record history as we define the effort. The same is true for the incompatible and individually incredible birth stories. Each man was writing about his faith that Jesus was the Messiah and it should come as no surprise to anyone that their individual efforts to express their individual beliefs would turn out quite different.

smokester

Amaleg 13 quote
me
You are right ----instead of the "only" way, I should have said "a" way to resolve the obvious contradictions. BTW, it is "a" way that doesn't seem to have many takers.

Asha'man

Most likely, they "knew" that Jesus was special, that he must be the Messiah. It was a matter of faith to them, no evidence was needed. However, since they "knew" that Jesus was the Messiah, it must also be true that he was descended from David as scripture required.

So they wrote down what must be true, without realizing that they were essentially fabricating history.

At least, that's one possibility, and a charitable one. An alternative is that the authors of Matthew and Luke were essentially salesmen on commission. They were perfectly willing to lie, cheat, and fabricate any story that would generate converts and therefore cash. Given the existence of televangelists today, men who earn $80 million a year with faith healing and lecture circuits, I think this second alternative is quite plausible. They were careless in that two conflicting stories were generated, but that's not surprising given the speed of comunication in those days.

Johnny Skeptic

For that matter, why does the writer(s) of any religious book write what he writes? Assuming that we only had Mary's genealogy, and that we could reliably trace her genealogy back to Abraham, how would that help Christians? If the Bible said that a pig sprouted wings and flew, Christians would believe it. How would that be any different than a talking donkey that the Old Testament mentions?

Johnny Skeptic

But smokester, we have already gone through this before. I told you that James Holding and Glenn Miller do not have any problems with the two genealogies. You replied:

I replied:

As far as James Holding and a lot of other Christians are concerned, it has been settled. Consider the following:

http://www.tektonics.org/sab/sabmatt.html

James Holding

Omission of names and telescoping was NORMAL [Johnny: emphasis mine] See http://www.tektonics.org/af/exodline.html, and see http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html, and http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesgen.html for the variation in names, and for issues in the next several cites.

Johnny: So you see, smokester, James Holding and Glenn Miller are not in the least bit deterred by the two different genealogies.

I am still trying to get you to understand that it doesn't make any difference whether there is one genealogy, or two genealogies. If all that we had was Mary's genealogy, it would not be of any value whatsoever to Christians. I challenge Christians to prove otherwise.[/quote]

Johnny Skeptic

Now readers, I am still waiting for someone to tell me what difference it makes whether there is one genealogy or two genealogies. Even if all that we had was Mary's genealogy, how would that be of any value to Christians?