FreezBee

Then you might not have heard either that Jesus could not have been born at the same time in both gospels?

Just to add to the fun of this very interesting thread. In Matthew, Jesus is born near the end of the reign of some king Herod, and we read that:
So this king must be Herod the Great, whose son Archelaus followed him on the throne 4 bce. So we can be no later than 4 bce, and are probably a few years before that.

But soon members of Archelaus' own family asked the Romans to depose Archelaus and place Judea under direct Roman rule, which happened 6 ce. Shortly after a cencus was ordered to establish the taxation income from the province. The newly appointed legat of Syria, Quirinius, was supervisor of this census, and it was Quirinius' first civil legatship (in Syria or elsewhere).
Let's just ignore the claim that the census was for "the entire Roman world", which may be a misinterpretation of the Greek original. What is important is rhar we have a census, while Quirinius was governor of Syria, and it's the first census. So we can be no earlier than 6 ce.

Was Jesus born before 4 bce, as Matthew has it? Or was Jesus born in 6-7 ce, as Luke has it? As usual, the apologetics have not been unimaginative and have tried as best they could to have Quirinius have some governmentship (civil or military) in Syria before 4 bce.

Richard Carrier has a rebuttal of those attempts at this page:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...quirinius.html

which has been previously discussed in this thread

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=71949


enjoy!

- FreezBee

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Why a lie, if people understood that generations were sometimes skipped?

Yet I posted a response (that the word used need not mean "never ever again", and that a participle was used, "sitting," implying ceasing a current action, but again not implying no resumption), that did not get a further reply, until this moment, as I recall.

I would need more specifics, however, before I adopt your conclusion.

Yet I have a quote by a church father which gives evidence for this sort of possibility!

"The second century historian Julius Africanus, a native of Israel, records information given by Christ’s remaining family in his day. According to their family genealogy, Joseph’s grandfather Matthan (mentioned in Matthew) married a woman named Estha, who bore him a son named Jacob. After Matthan died, Estha married his close relative Melchi (mentioned in Luke) and bore him a son named Heli. Jacob and Heli were thus half-brothers."

"But Heli died childless, and so Jacob married his widow and fathered Joseph, who was biologically the son of Jacob but legally the son of Heli" (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1:6:7).

How is it, then, that I am resorting to a desperate expedient?

Why would Jesus' genealogy be said to be endless, though? For it would begin with Adam, and end with Jesus, nor would I expect Paul to call the genealogies of Jesus fables.

2 Timothy 2:8 Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel...

Unless adoption included a person in the family line? Or maybe a human egg was supernaturally fertilized?

Thanks, Julian, and JW, so now, JW, I have to believe everything Raymond Brown wrote, if I am a Christian? Why is that, may I ask? Why is he the principle interpreter on this passage?

But I need to be convinced by his arguments, and not merely with his name or even his reputation, which as you may have deduced, had not reached me...

Nor in a Greek genealogy in Matthew 1-8 that skips generations! But do you have an exhaustive list of all Greek genealogies, may I ask?

And "primarily" implies not always, and that was the point I was making, and I agreed that the ordinary meaning is direct descent.

And Hebrews 11:12! But that second reference is certainly mistaken, if they meant this second verse as an example of direct descent. And "parent" can mean more than just immediate parent in Scripture, so if the Biblical meaning of parent is what was meant, that would include both verses consistently.

Luke 18:29 "I tell you the truth," Jesus said to them, "no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God ...

I think this would include grandchildren, and grandparents, and similarly here:

1 Timothy 5:4 But if a widow has children or grandchildren, they should first learn to fulfill their duty toward their own household and so repay their parents what is owed them.

Unless "gennaw" sometimes has a meaning other than direct descent, which indeed it can have.

Well, I did respond, and you have yet again repeated your question, so I will leave it at that.

That's fine, I agree again that all means all, and specifically "all significant generations," all 14 of them.

Yes, I just did...

Nor does it seem they claimed that there were no skips! So I think this proves they did not tell us what they thought on this point.

No, a beginning does not mean an exhaustive list, it really doesn't.

Unless the official set out to record the important items? Sorry, "official" doesn't imply "exhaustive," either, it does tend to imply "careful," though.

Well, if it's complete, we ought to have thousands, if not millions of names! Certainly this genealogy is selective, and we ought not to assume that the author was concerned to give us every detail in all he said:

Genesis 5:30 After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters.

Because the author knew which names were important to list, and what he said addressed the purpose at hand? Which need not have been to satisfy any given person's curiosity.

John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Well, I gave a response, names often had variants, but again, I don't want to be opening lots of other topics.

Well, then.

This would prove critical commentary correct?

I am not sure what you mean here, though.

Matthew 12:48 He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?"

I think this may well be a reference to a special birth.

It seems odd, then, that this title occurs in Mark:

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Sorry, I don't know!

Well, again, let's not be opening more topics, though a recorded census doesn't mean there were no others, an argument from silence in archaeology is rather shaky at best.

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

But what difference does it make what Mary's or Joseph's family lines were? Every human has a genealogy. What is unusual about that? Even if you could accurately trace your own family line back 4,000 years, so what?

Or maybe a human egg was not supernaturally fertilized?

Kosh

There was a prophecy about the Messiah coming from the line of David. The geneology was an attempt to claim fullfillment of the prophecy.

Johnny Skeptic

But there is not any credible evidence that Mary or Joseph were from the line of David. Which scriptures are you referring to that predict that a messiah fitting Jesus' description who would come from the line of David? Actually, regardless of genealogy, which scriptures refer to a messiah fitting Jesus' description?

Kosh

Of course not.

If you're a fundy, the Gospels are that credible evidence. but that's teh
not the point of this thread. The point is there are two versions of the geneology, which makes it obvious to all non-fundies that they were fabricated.

Don't recall, somewhere in the OT.

None of them, but that's another topic for the fundies to defend.

Johnny Skeptic

But sophisticated fundies, James Holding for instance (his web site is at www.tektonics.org), are not in the least bit troubled by the two different genealogies, but Holding et al are definitely troubled when it comes to providing evidence that either Mary's or Joseph's geneaology can reliably be traced back through David. Arguing about the two different genealogies is a waste of time.

hayahtowb

Still haven't found "the key of the house of David"?, well don't worry, someone will come along and help, sometime soon I think.

smokester

originally posted by hayahtowb
me
What you talkin about???

diana

Hi, smokester.

This is one of my favorite contradictions (or "apparent contradictions," if you prefer). Upon a cursory scan, I see JoeWallack has brought the additional problems of Chronicles to the table. If you're interested, here's a little write-up I did a few months back with a chart of the three. A chart may make things easier to see and compare.

d