thentian

The claim in question is that Jews at that time wrote "son" when they were talking about a "son-in-law". I do not see backup for that in your previous post, but may have missed it. Enlightenment?

DLH

Okay. I have to stop for a minute to keep my head from exploding. Let me rest. Leave me be.

[later]

Okay.

I didn't say that Mary was listed in the ancestry because she wasn't and I explained why that is. Just read the post!

DLH

Okay ... [laughs]

From my original post - Frederic Louis Godet wrote: "This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: 'Genus matris non vocatur genus ( "The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant")' ('Baba bathra,' 110, a)." Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.

In my original post I made it absolutely clear without a doubt that the genealogy given in the gospels were never questioned by the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' time. They would have questioned it if there were any reason to do so. Why do you question it?

Cege

DLH, if you're looking for strength in numbers questioning your claim, I'll add my request for you to provide source/s for your claim that Jews in that time wrote "son" when they meant "son-in-law".

If you didn't make up this claim, then where did you learn what you claim to be true?

ETA I see you posted as I was posting, and that your information comes from Frederic Louis Godet. On what source material does he base his claim?

Amaleq13

What evidence exists that suggests "the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' time" were aware of either genealogy?

DLH

Yeah. And what source material did the source material come from ... etc. It all comes back to the Bible when we are talking about the Bible. And the Bible isn't going to satisfy you. So why bother? Because I can't prove that a son-in-law is the same as a son?! Are you kidding me? Is it so different than your own customes?

Read the book of Ruth. But if that is a bit much for you you could always go to Amazon.com and buy the "Craig And Dawkins Coloring Book For Idiot Skeptics" p. 47, published by Little, Brown and Co. $14.50 if you are [ha] so inclined.

thentian

Godet makes an ok argument for how Luke must mean to trace J's genealogy through Mary/Heli. However, it is arguable that Luke talks about Joseph the way he does ("supposedly the father"), because he is soon going to tell how Joesph isn't the father after all. As far as I can tell, Baba Bathra just shows that jews would consider someone as a legal descendant if it came through the mother's side. (Which could also be a reason to ask why Luke simply doesn't say it out loud.)

All of this, however, hinges on whether the word "son" also covers "son-in-law". If they had a word(s) to express father-in-law/son-in-law and habitually did so, Godet's argument falls flat. If it can be shown that they consistently did not make a distinction between "son" and "son-in-law" then he has something. And I don't see where Godet substantiates that.

ETA: I'll understand if you don't feel like going to all the trouble of finding such evidence. I expect this is no big question of faith for you.

DLH

Are you joking? Read Ezra. 1 and 2 Chronicles.

Cege

Nope, not kidding you. You don't seem to understand that making a claim without being able to offer evidence to support that claim just isn't going to fly in this forum.

If it all comes back to the Bible, where in Luke's gospel is it claimed that the genealogy given is Mary's?

Where in the Bible is a son-in-law the same as a son?

If you are questioning about my personal customs, I don't claim that my son-in-law is my son. He is not.

Amaleq13

Are you? Or just not reading carefully?

Neither Ezra and 1&2 Chronicles indicate that "the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' time" were aware of either genealogy.

What evidence does?