ok Apologist.  Where in the "Scripture does it say that this is the case?"  This is why I call you an apologist, because you are using a very weak apologetic "refutation" to substantiate your Christian claim.  Further, apologetic speculation is divided on this issue. 

 

Finally, you do not seem to be addressing the primary focus of this post.

I have criticised your argument and all you did was whine. I think there's a number for that. it's a free number, 800 whaaa.

Now argue why don't you. You started it. If not, then you're as pathetic as the rest of them on here.

 

A picture is worth a thousand words. How could one list have 14 more generations and  the shorter list not have some omissions? the 14/14/14 is way to convenient.

Note the names in bold. That is the only place names match.

I have found the author of Matthew is a poor student. It is quite the flawed book, especially noteworthy when quoting the OT. 

 

If we say the book of Luke uses Mary's list,  Mary is not in the messianic lineage because she doesn't come from Solomon.  (see 2 Sam.7:12-13,1 Chron.17:11-14,22:10,28:4-7) and yet she ALONE shares DNA with Jesus. Matthew had to tack on Joseph to give some credence for his Jewish audience, but what need does Luke have to not directly name Mary instead of Joseph for his Gentile audience. "Mary's, the husband of Joseph, father was Heli" [fixed]. Writing decades after the event and to a wide audience a little clarity would be nice. Then also explain the Nathan DNA problem versus the prophecy of Solomon. I thought at least god's prophecies would be true. Lots of fail.

 

Also, talk about hillbilly incest.

Jesus was his own father. Jesus was the son of Mary and her father. Jesus was Joseph's son and father and he defiled his wife. 

 

 

 

Hi Opie,

Is this part of your 3 volume book? And you call yourself a reseacher? lol really? what?

This question was addressed 100 years ago and again in the 70's.

oi vey. I'm sure you won't be getting rich from your research/writings.

First of all, matthew is tracing his paternally through solomon. Luke is tracing his line maternally through Nathan, Solomon's brother.

Second, Matthew only reported back to abraham, luke to adam.

Third, begat vs. son of between luke and matthew is an important note.

I can keep going. Have you not heard of these things OPIE?

One more thing, the paternal and maternal come together in the intermarriage of Shealttel and Zerubbabal.

I could continue, but i think you get the point. You are using very old out of date arguments that have been refuted on several occasions.

If you're going to be a researcher, you need to actually research lol. Think, come up with new ideas.

If I were to grade you on this performance, i'm afraid you would fail miserably.

wow, lol,

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

Michael,

The problem we're having right now is that you suck at research.

This seems like a rather emotional comment, the reason for which I can only assume, is that you are emotionally invested in your belief, which leads you to speak and act in ways dictated by the emotional drives inherent within the belief itself.  In other words, this is not you speaking but the belief/intoxicant.

When I have an opponent, the very least that I try to do is understand my opponents position if at all possible more then he does (which is usually the case). This has been addressed on many many occasions.

This self-aggrandizing speech seems to lend support to my supposition above.

This scholar guy who is under Metzger (I've read most of Metzger's works) is reacting emotionally to the text. I have studied textual criticism when i was 15 so I am aware of the science behind it.

 

Ehrman, AKA "this scholar guy" as you so eloquently put it, is one of the most competant NT scholars with regards to that science which you "studied" from the age of "15" and although such a fact does not equal truth per se, he is not the only renowned textual and historical scholar to hold this opinion.  What work of Metzger's have you read?  I have read almost everything I have been able to find of Metzger's so I would like to quiz you if that would be ok?

 

also, you did not address any of my rebuttals but instead just distracted from the situation and threw ad hominem fallacies.

 

You rebuttal was based on my outdated research, for which I supplied you with a reference to scholarship which is but a few years old.  So I am quite sure I addressed your rebuttal/personal attack.

 

I will outline just a few points that have already on numerous times have been addressed.

1) The two genealogies do not contradict each other. For this to be they would have to have no possiblity for reconciliation and be antithetical in manner, way and relationship.

This is the first time you have raised these somewhat dubious criteria for establishing whether or not a contradiction can be called as such.

 

"No Possibility of Reconcilliation"

 

This seems more like an apologetic criterion, than a scholarly one.  The reason I say this is that it is so so broad, that almost any contradiction can fall under this criterion and be unreasonably spared the label of contradiction.  When you use "possibility" as an aspect of an address to such a matter, the recviever must concede that anything is possible and thus, the contradictory verses, forming the basis of this discussion, can be cleverly elimated by the argument that; it is possible that extra information is missing which would reconcile these narratives.  Whilst I concede that such may be the case, we have to deal with what we have, and as it stands, the geneaologies are different, even though both claim to be describing Joseph's lineage, "Matthew" does say there are 3 lots of 14 generations, but only supplies 2 lots of 14 and one lot of 13.  This is what we have to work with. 

Further, according to the fourth limb of the dictionary definition (the limb relevent to the matter at hand) of the word "contradiction," a contradiction is present when there is:

4) direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contradiction

 

Thus, applying this definition to what we have, not what we wish we had, or want to have, there are contradictions between the narratives supplied by both "Matthew" and "Luke," (not to mention most of the other books of the bible, both OT and NT.) that satisfy not only the first limb of your criteria, but also the second one.  In other words the contradictions in the pages of these texts make them antithetical in way, manner and relationship.

 

The issue of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. Matthew does not convey that mary and joe lived in betheleham before the birth of Christ. It's just statated the Jesus was born in bethlehem.

This is true.  "Matthew" does not say that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem before Jesus' birth, nor does he/she say that they lived in Nazareth. On top of this, he/she describes Jesus' nativity as taking place in a "house," which has led many highly reputable bible scholars and historians (Daniel J. Harrington, Geza Vermes, E.P. Sanders, Ehrman) to deduce that the author believed Jesus' parents lived in Bethlehem prior to his nativity.  Furthermore, there is a contradiction regarding the events that followed his birth, with "Luke" saying that he went and got snipped in Jerusalem according to Jewish Law and "Matthew" saying that he was taken to Egypt.

Luke is not saying that the angel told mary only and joseph was in the dark. But he assumed joseph already knew before the dreaem. This is infered since Joseph decided to divorce mary discreetly.

What you have said here represents wishful speculation, not reasonable inference. There seems to also be a slight illogicality in the speculative argument presented above.  You argue that "Luke" assumed Joseph knew that his wife was impregnated with his god/god's son, which led him to want to divorce his wife.  Hah?  Think about that one for a while.

Matthew 1:1-16: genealogy of Jesus via Joseph who was through the line of King David via adoption.

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ, which was made of the seed [sperma] of David according to the flesh; and [only] declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness… (Romans 1:3,4 KJV)

 

 

you created the logical fallacy of ad populum and the fallacy from authority.

you did not rebut my arguments against your original slop.

I am quite sure I did.  Considering you merely attacked the "outdated" nature of my research.  "Original Slop," really?

 

You did not RESEARCH the history of this so called "contradiction" to see what the opposing sides have to say about it. For example, Gleason Archor.

I believe his name is Gleason Archer, not Archor.  What does he say?

 

It's like saying that there is a "contradiction" with Judas' death because at one place it said he hung himself and yet in another place it says his guts splattered on the rocks.

There isn't?  Do tell.

 

 

you have failed miserably. You are an old woman with no shoe, poor, homeless, with nothing but echoes of stupid dust.

You seem disturbed.  Are you ok on the inside_?  Not a sarcastic question.  I am being sincere.  If you would like to change the tone and nature of our discourse just let me know and I can say things that accord with your beliefs and put your mind at ease.