Baidarka

OK. Apologists, here it is the Mother of NT contradictions. Apologists go first.

Matthew

1A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[1] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.[2]

or

Luke

23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
24the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
26the son of Naggai, the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
28the son of Neri, the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
30the son of Levi, the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
32the son of David, the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,[4] the son of Nahshon,
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[5]
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
34the son of Judah, the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
36the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
38the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.

epoq

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: epoq ]</p>

Wyz_sub10

epoq,

You'll quickly forfeit any credibility you have with assinine responses like that.

So you are saying one geneology is for Mary and one from Joseph?

and

Why don't you start by explaining that one tp begin with?

It's pretty obvious both lineages are traced through Joseph, especially since Joseph's "grandfather" is identified in both lines.

By the way, you might want to lay off the ad hominem attacks. You reinforce the idea that christians cannot handle critical analysis.

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Wyz_sub10 ]</p>

epoq

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: epoq ]</p>

Lord Asriel

Manners are also always a good idea, especially if you want to be taken seriously. Yours must be the most arrogant and least respectful first post I have ever seen here.

Although Biblical Criticism is not my speciality, I don't think you're arguement is going to hold water. Wyz has already pointed out the obvious problem, and simply asserting that "oh, Luke meant son-in-law that time" as your link does is going to convince precisely no-one.

Arguement from UPPER CASE ASSERTION is also not going to help.

Wyz_sub10

Oh, I'm sorry...are you the only one allowed to make blanket statements? I wasn't aware.

And please, no need to address me as 'Mr.', although an attempt at respect (albeit through a veiled hostility) is welcome.

Can you supply any supporting information that Luke refers to the maternal line?

Sorry to confuse you with a christian apologist. It's just that you have the arrogance, hostility and simple-mindedness down pat.

Please continue to post confrontational messages with no substance. You won't further any meaningful discussion here, but at least you'll give us something to amuse ourselves with.

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Wyz_sub10 ]</p>

epoq

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: epoq ]</p>

diana

RESEARCH is ALWAYS a good idea, BEFORE assuming you are wiser than the 498276429140921734 people who have critiqued the bible.

Actually, I'd suggest you're hearing from critics of the bible right now. Please don't confuse us with believers, whose purpose is clearly to harmonize it.

Critics point out there are several problems with the geneologies, which don't begin to match. There's:

a. the father of Joseph discrepancy
b. the fact that neither of them purports to be for Mary, as you'd like to believe (please check the Hebrew version)
c. the fact that since both are supposed to trace Joseph's line, neither logically has any bearing on Jesus' bloodline
d. the infamous Jeconiah problem (Jer 36:30-31)
e. both NT geneologies list a different number of generations
the fact that there are discrepancies not only between the two, but between either and the geneologies of the OT (Chronicles, I believe)

Hm. Also, the NT suggests geneologies are an indication that someone's trying to impress you with royal bloodlines, and that these things don't matter, anyway: 1 Tim.1:4 "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies," and Tit.3:9 "Avoid foolish questions and genealogies."

But then I guess that's your door out, if you like. You can blithely discount all we say as "foolish questions" and dismiss them with a wave of your hand. But you probably should stand ready, in season and out of season, to defend the faith that is in you, yes?

You might want to lock yourself in a closet to review and meditate upon the following verses before you respond:

You obviously are convinced we oppose ourselves. Therefore, as the self-appointed elect of God you are, you have a requirement to be meek and gentle and longsuffering toward us, yes?

d

Wyz_sub10

Which "sides" are you referring to?

You're half-right.

This makes no sense whatsoever. You were the first to respond to the thread. How can you say your rant was justified because no one presented evidence? Who's getting away with what, exactly?

If you wanted intelligent discussion, where was yours? A proper response would have been to address the contradiction by supplying evidence to support your position.

Instead, you chose to attack the author.

Sorry, your rationale for your poor behaviour is ludicrous.

MortalWombat

You misspelled 'wit'.