Thanks to all for comments and suggestions.. COFTY said: "The two names that do correspond in the list also rule against this idea. If the two lists are the separate genealogies of two people they don’t get to merge at random points in this way." -- Please take a look at this if you care to listen to a possible explanation: "Now the issue about Shealtiel and Zerubbabel I find intriguing. The argument Jim makes here is that THEY are descendants of the 'bad Jeconiah' and THEY show up in BOTH the legal AND the physical lineages of Jesus. And, if the prophecy in Jeremiah is taken to mean a long-range restriction (which I/many others do NOT believe is the case, see above), then we clearly have a problem in the Lukan, physical/gene-stream lineage ofJesus. But let me ask an impertinent question here. Why do we believe the S+Z (Shealtiel and Zerubbabel) of the two lineage's are THE SAME PEOPLE? Think about it: *. They have different parents *. They have different children. *. They are descended from different sons of David. *. Their chronological placements on a time line could differ by as much as a CENTURY! (depending on how the omissions in Matthew are accounted for, and on what the average age of child-bearing was.) THE ONLY THING THEY HAVE IN COMMON ARE THEIR NAMES! This single commonality can hardly be a strong argument for their identity: 1. Zerubbabel was a common name from the early Persian period (539-331bc.), as shown by cuneiform inscriptions from Babylonia (see ZPEB , V. 1057) 2. The genealogies themselves have numerous names that repeat WITHIN the genealogy (e.g. Joseph, Mattathias, Judah) without being the same individuals; These names could also be common names. 3. The names in the genealogies are standard, common, everyday names. We have NUMEROUS people named Levi, Amos, Nahum, etc. in the OT accounts. There is just NO REASON to associate the S+Z of Luke with the S+Z of Matthew. (And even the pattern of S-followed-by-Z doesn't carry much weight--families often honored prominent people this way.) What this means is that the S+Z ofMatthew are the S+Z of Jeremiah, and that the S+Z of Luke (whose genes DO reach to Jesus) could easily be a different set, descended from Nathan and not through Solomon-thru-Jeconiah. [A very careful, detailed argumentthat these are different pairs, is given by R. Larry Overstreet,"Difficulties of New Testament Genealogies", Grace Theological Journal , Fall 1981, vol 2:2, 304ff. His concluding comment on this has an interesting personal note to it: "The position then, that the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of Matthew are the same men mentioned by Luke fails in all three of its possible explanations . This constitutes a strong argument that the two men of Matthew are indeed distinct from the two men of Luke . However, it may be argued that it seems unusual, at the least, for blood relatives in the same generation to have the same names . This is not a significant objection. This present writer has a first cousin,about the same age, with the same first and last name as his own . Therefore, the identical names need not be an obstacle to recognizing what the Scriptures indicate—that the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of Matthew are not the same as those of Luke."] " http://christianthinktank.com/fabprof4.html
A Question for those who have trust in the Bible/Jesus..
by The Quiet One 94 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
-
cofty
The Quiet One - your response resorts to the same sort of agonising mental gymnastics that we used to employ to protect our JW beliefs.
It does not address some of the main points of my argument and to be honest you dont understand your own answer or you would have explained it in your own words instead of the copy-paste.
The genealogies cannot be reconciled neither can the birth narratives. Why resort to this kind of tactic?
-
cofty
Luke's was likely the genealogy of Mary
So why does Luke say emphatically that it is not? You are trying to defend the indefensible because you are committed a priori to the inerrancy of the bible.
-
Juan Viejo2
I suggest that everyone just take a breather and read "Misquoting Jesus" and "Jesus Interrupted" by Bart Ehrman. Everything listed above (Mary Magdalene, etc.) is discussed in detail in these two books. Open your minds for just a few hours and read what Ehrman has to say. Then come back here and let us know if you still have questions about why all these apparent contradictions exist.
JV
-
The Quiet One
Cofty-- I don't understand how suggesting that S+Z were not the same people on both lists, when Z was a common name in those days, is agonising to you mentally.. but fair enough. I do actually see this as reasonable, I often use copy/paste because I have little time windows in my double life, often not enough to spare typing out long explanations. Just trying to help.. Got to go, please feel free to point out something that I've missed, might be back later..
-
cofty
You are right Bart Ehrman should be read by every ex-jw. It will open your eyes to facts that every bible scholar has known for decades and expose how dreadful the scholarship of the borg was.
-
The Quiet One
If you'd read the link on page 3.. "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 theson 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. "
-
meni
I believe everyone acknowledges Jesus , they all want everyone to believe he had something to do with their religion or belief system. I find the amusing ones , the masons, who from the 33rd decree (sorry ) up are under no illusions as to who they worship (prettyshiny) One of their proselyte organisations ,the order of the rose or Rosacruisans, reckon they held hands in a circle around his dearh at Golgotha , the bible says that much also, Psalm 22 v12 v16 according to them he went to Egypt , Tibet, India ,An Avitar for everyone. The Sun of the incas maybe, everyone wants him, they all talk about the christ within. I take the man at his word, (Jesus) he is who he said he is . anyone who listens to that one really should believe. As for all the new ages and even Islam (also everyone else) Babylon and the vatican believe it or not is your mum, she birthed you.It was intentional and it took a huge effort and alot of help from the God who tempted Jesus on the mountain. I hope there is no Jesuit assasins on line . Most people are very well intended and happy if they have food in their stomach and a roof over their heads. Its not easy for the top end to orchestrate kaos with religion,courts etc Dan 3 v2, 3 , 4, Ezekiel ch 27 v33, 34, Isaiah 23 v8 ,to 13, REv 18 v 9 ,10, v17 v21 v22 . The Devil really is in the detail and much devotion is wearisome to the flesh Ecc 12 v12. Ecc 10 v6 , 7. The top end worship an Owl (molech) and engage in the same sex (Baal) as Sodom and Gommorah, do drugs and alcohol then pontificate to us as they send our young ones to a sacrifices of War to Artemis , Dianna, Ishtar ,Mary whatever wine you like.The people who run the world are SUN worshippers not son of God worshippers. They care even less for his father Jehovah. Why would you worry about the detail when the whole world is mad and is destroying the very thing they worship , the creation . or was that evolution Isaiah 8 v12 v13
-
Juan Viejo2
Someone please correct me if my gentile brain is wrong on this:
My understanding is that modern Jews trace the base lineage through the mother, not the father. I've heard that Israel will grant citizenship to applicants that can prove their mother was Jewish - no matter what the father might have been. It does not always grant it to those with a Jewish father and a gentile mother.
However, the history of the Jewish people shows that sons inherit their father's name, property, concubines, livestock, and other possessions.
JV