Discussion with a Fundie about The OT
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-10-2015, 08:02 PM
RE: Discussion with a Fundie about The OT
According to Matthew father of Joseph is Jacob. But according to Luke father of Joseph is Heli. Both Jacob and Heli are brothers, they are son's of Matthat.
Somebody made an error in Matt 1:16 and wrote that Jacob begat Joseph. Jacob begat Mary. It makes Joseph and Mary first cousins and seed of David. Mary is of royal family.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2015, 08:09 PM
RE: Discussion with a Fundie about The OT
(30-10-2015 07:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  As usual, complete BULLSHIT.
How EXACTLY, did she get this "seed" ? They had NO NOTION of science as we do today.
She got seed of David from her father Jacob. She is ancestor of David.
It makes Jesus ancestor of David through mother.
Messiah has to be ancestor of David.
(30-10-2015 07:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  (Clearly you are totally ignorant of ancient cultures). I already told you the "seed" comes from the FATHER.
But if mother has seed of David her children have seed of David, they are ancestors of David. Jesus is ancestor of David.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2015, 08:12 PM (This post was last modified: 30-10-2015 08:20 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Discussion with a Fundie about The OT
(30-10-2015 07:28 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(30-10-2015 06:22 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  lol

as usual Alla gets an A for effort, a D for exegesis, and a resounding F for knowledge.

Do we have any quotes from the NT that Jesus's mother was not from the house of David? or that she was not Joseph's cousin besides that she was his wife?
Jesus had mortal mother. He got from her mortal body and seed of Abraham (which is very important), and seed of Jacob(very important) and seed of Judah (very important) and seed of David(very important).

Happy to oblige you as always Alla. Teaching you religion's fallacies seems to be a consistent issue Big Grin

The genealogies of Jesus present a particularly embarrassing example of why the gospel writers are not reliable historians. Matthew gives a genealogy of Jesus consisting of 28 names from David down to Joseph. Luke gives a reverse genealogy of Jesus consisting up 43 names from Joseph back to David. They each purport to prove that Jesus is of royal blood, though neither of them explains why Joseph genealogy is even relevant if he was not Jesus' father: remember, according to the story Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Ghost. Matthew's line goes from David's son Solomon, while Luke's goes from David's son Nathan. The two genealogies could not have been the same person.

Another problem is that Luke's genealogy of Jesus goes through Nathan, which was not the royal line. Nor could Matthew's genealogy be the Royal line after Jeconiah because the divine prophecy says of Jeconiah that "no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:30)

Even if Luke's line is truly through Mary, Luke reports that Mary was a cousin to Elizabeth, who was of the tribe of Levi, not the royal line. All of which is irrelevant as according to the fable; god was the father, not Joseph. The anonymous authors were desperate to establish a royal line to fulfill the “prophesy”…it seems making it up as you go was a popular concept back then.

According to Christian teachings, Jesus had only a human Jewish mother, and was not related to Joseph. A human Jewish father, however is essential for anyone to be a legitimate heir to the throne of David, which the real messiah will be.

Mary’s genealogy is completely irrelevant to Jesus’ supposed lineage to King David. For good reason, nowhere in the New Testament is Mary’s genealogy recorded. As mentioned above, matrilineal ancestry is irrelevant to tribe identification. Both the first chapter of Matthew and in the third chapter of Luke contain a putative genealogy of Joseph alone. Although these two genealogies completely contradict each other, neither suggests that Mary was a descendant of king of David. Joseph’s genealogy is irrelevant to Jesus because according to two out of four Gospels claim that Joseph was not Jesus’ father. The author of the Book of Mark, the earliest of the four Gospels, knows nothing of a virgin birth, and accordingly, begins his book with the baptism of Jesus. The Book of John contains no infancy narrative.

It should be noted that both Catholic and Protestant traditions hold that whereas Matthew’s genealogy is that of Joseph, Luke’s genealogy is of Mary. Although this tradition is nowhere to be found in the New Testament, it was a necessary doctrine for the Church to adopt.

Nowhere in the third Gospel, or in the entire New Testament, for that matter, is there a claim that Mary was a descendant of the House of David. On the contrary, Luke plainly asserts that it is Joseph who was from the House of David, not Mary.

"To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary." (Luke 1:27)

In fact, Luke claims that Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth, who he says was a descendant of Aaron the high priest, placing her in the tribe of Levi, not David’s tribe of Judah. Moreover, in Luke 2:4, the author writes that the reason it was necessary for Joseph and Mary to return to Bethlehem was because it was Joseph, not Mary, who was from the House of David. uhoh.

"And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David." (Luke 2:4)

There are a number of reasons why the Church sought to claim that Luke’s genealogy of Jesus is traced through Mary’s line. To begin with, Paul claims in Romans 1:3 that Jesus was from the seed of David after the flesh. This has always been understood to mean that Paul was claiming that King David was the biological ancestor of Jesus. At the time when Paul penned the Book of Romans, he was completely unaware that Christendom would eventually claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. Consequently, the Church desperately needed Paul’s statement to correlate with the virgin-birth story.

This dilemma was solved by the assertion that whereas Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus was traced through Joseph’s line, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus was through Mary’s lineage. In this way, Jesus could now be from the seed of David after the flesh through Luke’s genealogy. Likewise, establishing Mary’s lineage to King David, Luke’s genealogy ostensibly solves the problem of what to do with Romans 1:3 (Paul), and enables the Church to claim a physical link between Jesus and King David.

Finally, it seeks to resolve an awkward discrepancy between the conflicting genealogies contained in the books of Matthew and Luke. Whereas in Matthew’s genealogy, Joseph’s father is Jacob, in Luke’s genealogy it is Heli. By claiming that Luke’s genealogy is of Mary, Heli becomes Mary’s father and Joseph’s father-in-law.

Sadly, Christendom’s far-fetched resolution to the Gospel’s conflicting genealogies has satisfied the unlettered minds of billions of parishioners worldwide.

Smartass

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
30-10-2015, 08:17 PM (This post was last modified: 30-10-2015 08:24 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Discussion with a Fundie about The OT
(30-10-2015 08:09 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(30-10-2015 07:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  As usual, complete BULLSHIT.
How EXACTLY, did she get this "seed" ? They had NO NOTION of science as we do today.
She got seed of David from her father Jacob. She is ancestor of David.
It makes Jesus ancestor of David through mother.
Messiah has to be ancestor of David.
(30-10-2015 07:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  (Clearly you are totally ignorant of ancient cultures). I already told you the "seed" comes from the FATHER.
But if mother has seed of David her children have seed of David, they are ancestors of David. Jesus is ancestor of David.

No. Wrong again. You can assert that crap until you're blue in the face. The JEWS did not count familial genealogy through the female. EVER. She had no "seed". The "seed" is contributed by the father, and only the father. You can find NOT ONE other instance of genealogy through the mother. Jesus is not "ancestor" of David. That means David is his son. ??? You don't even know what you are saying. I don't care what you think. And BTW, you have it backwards. The messiah has to be a DESCENDANT, not "ancestor" (supposedly). Ancestor means "born before and begets descendants". Tell your Jebus to send someone who knows what they're talking about. Matthew 1:12-16 -- the genealogy of JOSEPH, "the husband of Mary".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
30-10-2015, 08:28 PM
RE: Discussion with a Fundie about The OT
(30-10-2015 08:02 PM)Alla Wrote:  ........................Somebody made an error in Matt 1:16 and wrote that Jacob begat Joseph. Jacob begat Mary. It makes Joseph and Mary first cousins and seed of David. Mary is of royal family.

errors in the bible? no way. Dodgy

this falls in line with how christians point to one discrdited story...like the exodus for example, and go, oh well that was just an "analogy"...a "parable" meant to make a point, teach a lesson.... mhmmmm oh but this story here, where he resurrects and goes to heaven to rule from up high, THAT is true. Laugh out load

No no no, THAT was just an "error" what they MEANT to say was THIS..... Dodgy

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
30-10-2015, 09:14 PM
RE: Discussion with a Fundie about The OT
(30-10-2015 08:12 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(30-10-2015 07:28 PM)Alla Wrote:  Do we have any quotes from the NT that Jesus's mother was not from the house of David? or that she was not Joseph's cousin besides that she was his wife?
Jesus had mortal mother. He got from her mortal body and seed of Abraham (which is very important), and seed of Jacob(very important) and seed of Judah (very important) and seed of David(very important).

Happy to oblige you as always Alla. Teaching you religion's fallacies seems to be a consistent issue Big Grin

The genealogies of Jesus present a particularly embarrassing example of why the gospel writers are not reliable historians. Matthew gives a genealogy of Jesus consisting of 28 names from David down to Joseph. Luke gives a reverse genealogy of Jesus consisting up 43 names from Joseph back to David. They each purport to prove that Jesus is of royal blood, though neither of them explains why Joseph genealogy is even relevant if he was not Jesus' father: remember, according to the story Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Ghost. Matthew's line goes from David's son Solomon, while Luke's goes from David's son Nathan. The two genealogies could not have been the same person.

Another problem is that Luke's genealogy of Jesus goes through Nathan, which was not the royal line. Nor could Matthew's genealogy be the Royal line after Jeconiah because the divine prophecy says of Jeconiah that "no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:30)

Even if Luke's line is truly through Mary, Luke reports that Mary was a cousin to Elizabeth, who was of the tribe of Levi, not the royal line. All of which is irrelevant as according to the fable; god was the father, not Joseph. The anonymous authors were desperate to establish a royal line to fulfill the “prophesy”…it seems making it up as you go was a popular concept back then.

According to Christian teachings, Jesus had only a human Jewish mother, and was not related to Joseph. A human Jewish father, however is essential for anyone to be a legitimate heir to the throne of David, which the real messiah will be.

Mary’s genealogy is completely irrelevant to Jesus’ supposed lineage to King David. For good reason, nowhere in the New Testament is Mary’s genealogy recorded. As mentioned above, matrilineal ancestry is irrelevant to tribe identification. Both the first chapter of Matthew and in the third chapter of Luke contain a putative genealogy of Joseph alone. Although these two genealogies completely contradict each other, neither suggests that Mary was a descendant of king of David. Joseph’s genealogy is irrelevant to Jesus because according to two out of four Gospels claim that Joseph was not Jesus’ father. The author of the Book of Mark, the earliest of the four Gospels, knows nothing of a virgin birth, and accordingly, begins his book with the baptism of Jesus. The Book of John contains no infancy narrative.

It should be noted that both Catholic and Protestant traditions hold that whereas Matthew’s genealogy is that of Joseph, Luke’s genealogy is of Mary. Although this tradition is nowhere to be found in the New Testament, it was a necessary doctrine for the Church to adopt.

Nowhere in the third Gospel, or in the entire New Testament, for that matter, is there a claim that Mary was a descendant of the House of David. On the contrary, Luke plainly asserts that it is Joseph who was from the House of David, not Mary.

"To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary." (Luke 1:27)

In fact, Luke claims that Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth, who he says was a descendant of Aaron the high priest, placing her in the tribe of Levi, not David’s tribe of Judah. Moreover, in Luke 2:4, the author writes that the reason it was necessary for Joseph and Mary to return to Bethlehem was because it was Joseph, not Mary, who was from the House of David. uhoh.

"And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David." (Luke 2:4)

There are a number of reasons why the Church sought to claim that Luke’s genealogy of Jesus is traced through Mary’s line. To begin with, Paul claims in Romans 1:3 that Jesus was from the seed of David after the flesh. This has always been understood to mean that Paul was claiming that King David was the biological ancestor of Jesus. At the time when Paul penned the Book of Romans, he was completely unaware that Christendom would eventually claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. Consequently, the Church desperately needed Paul’s statement to correlate with the virgin-birth story.

This dilemma was solved by the assertion that whereas Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus was traced through Joseph’s line, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus was through Mary’s lineage. In this way, Jesus could now be from the seed of David after the flesh through Luke’s genealogy. Likewise, establishing Mary’s lineage to King David, Luke’s genealogy ostensibly solves the problem of what to do with Romans 1:3 (Paul), and enables the Church to claim a physical link between Jesus and King David.

Finally, it seeks to resolve an awkward discrepancy between the conflicting genealogies contained in the books of Matthew and Luke. Whereas in Matthew’s genealogy, Joseph’s father is Jacob, in Luke’s genealogy it is Heli. By claiming that Luke’s genealogy is of Mary, Heli becomes Mary’s father and Joseph’s father-in-law.

Sadly, Christendom’s far-fetched resolution to the Gospel’s conflicting genealogies has satisfied the unlettered minds of billions of parishioners worldwide.

Smartass

[Image: Ur7XVsP.gif?zoom=2]

That’s more complicated than a soap opera Hobo

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
30-10-2015, 09:21 PM
RE: Discussion with a Fundie about The OT
(30-10-2015 08:28 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(30-10-2015 08:02 PM)Alla Wrote:  ........................Somebody made an error in Matt 1:16 and wrote that Jacob begat Joseph. Jacob begat Mary. It makes Joseph and Mary first cousins and seed of David. Mary is of royal family.

errors in the bible? no way. Dodgy

this falls in line with how christians point to one discrdited story...like the exodus for example, and go, oh well that was just an "analogy"...a "parable" meant to make a point, teach a lesson.... mhmmmm oh but this story here, where he resurrects and goes to heaven to rule from up high, THAT is true. Laugh out load

No no no, THAT was just an "error" what they MEANT to say was THIS..... Dodgy

I always thought the genealogy of the "son of god" should go like this....

Jesus

vv

God



That's it.... that's all. But that makes too much sense.....sort of.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2015, 09:48 PM
RE: Discussion with a Fundie about The OT
(30-10-2015 08:02 PM)Alla Wrote:  It makes Joseph and Mary first cousins and seed of David. Mary is of royal family.

Got it. But was that before or after Horton heard the who ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2015, 06:17 AM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2015 06:20 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Discussion with a Fundie about The OT
(30-10-2015 08:12 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(30-10-2015 07:28 PM)Alla Wrote:  Do we have any quotes from the NT that Jesus's mother was not from the house of David? or that she was not Joseph's cousin besides that she was his wife?
Jesus had mortal mother. He got from her mortal body and seed of Abraham (which is very important), and seed of Jacob(very important) and seed of Judah (very important) and seed of David(very important).

Happy to oblige you as always Alla. Teaching you religion's fallacies seems to be a consistent issue Big Grin

The genealogies of Jesus present a particularly embarrassing example of why the gospel writers are not reliable historians. Matthew gives a genealogy of Jesus consisting of 28 names from David down to Joseph. Luke gives a reverse genealogy of Jesus consisting up 43 names from Joseph back to David. They each purport to prove that Jesus is of royal blood, though neither of them explains why Joseph genealogy is even relevant if he was not Jesus' father: remember, according to the story Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Ghost. Matthew's line goes from David's son Solomon, while Luke's goes from David's son Nathan. The two genealogies could not have been the same person.

Another problem is that Luke's genealogy of Jesus goes through Nathan, which was not the royal line. Nor could Matthew's genealogy be the Royal line after Jeconiah because the divine prophecy says of Jeconiah that "no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:30)

Even if Luke's line is truly through Mary, Luke reports that Mary was a cousin to Elizabeth, who was of the tribe of Levi, not the royal line. All of which is irrelevant as according to the fable; god was the father, not Joseph. The anonymous authors were desperate to establish a royal line to fulfill the “prophesy”…it seems making it up as you go was a popular concept back then.

According to Christian teachings, Jesus had only a human Jewish mother, and was not related to Joseph. A human Jewish father, however is essential for anyone to be a legitimate heir to the throne of David, which the real messiah will be.

Mary’s genealogy is completely irrelevant to Jesus’ supposed lineage to King David. For good reason, nowhere in the New Testament is Mary’s genealogy recorded. As mentioned above, matrilineal ancestry is irrelevant to tribe identification. Both the first chapter of Matthew and in the third chapter of Luke contain a putative genealogy of Joseph alone. Although these two genealogies completely contradict each other, neither suggests that Mary was a descendant of king of David. Joseph’s genealogy is irrelevant to Jesus because according to two out of four Gospels claim that Joseph was not Jesus’ father. The author of the Book of Mark, the earliest of the four Gospels, knows nothing of a virgin birth, and accordingly, begins his book with the baptism of Jesus. The Book of John contains no infancy narrative.

It should be noted that both Catholic and Protestant traditions hold that whereas Matthew’s genealogy is that of Joseph, Luke’s genealogy is of Mary. Although this tradition is nowhere to be found in the New Testament, it was a necessary doctrine for the Church to adopt.

Nowhere in the third Gospel, or in the entire New Testament, for that matter, is there a claim that Mary was a descendant of the House of David. On the contrary, Luke plainly asserts that it is Joseph who was from the House of David, not Mary.

"To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary." (Luke 1:27)

In fact, Luke claims that Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth, who he says was a descendant of Aaron the high priest, placing her in the tribe of Levi, not David’s tribe of Judah. Moreover, in Luke 2:4, the author writes that the reason it was necessary for Joseph and Mary to return to Bethlehem was because it was Joseph, not Mary, who was from the House of David. uhoh.

"And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David." (Luke 2:4)

There are a number of reasons why the Church sought to claim that Luke’s genealogy of Jesus is traced through Mary’s line. To begin with, Paul claims in Romans 1:3 that Jesus was from the seed of David after the flesh. This has always been understood to mean that Paul was claiming that King David was the biological ancestor of Jesus. At the time when Paul penned the Book of Romans, he was completely unaware that Christendom would eventually claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. Consequently, the Church desperately needed Paul’s statement to correlate with the virgin-birth story.

This dilemma was solved by the assertion that whereas Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus was traced through Joseph’s line, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus was through Mary’s lineage. In this way, Jesus could now be from the seed of David after the flesh through Luke’s genealogy. Likewise, establishing Mary’s lineage to King David, Luke’s genealogy ostensibly solves the problem of what to do with Romans 1:3 (Paul), and enables the Church to claim a physical link between Jesus and King David.

Finally, it seeks to resolve an awkward discrepancy between the conflicting genealogies contained in the books of Matthew and Luke. Whereas in Matthew’s genealogy, Joseph’s father is Jacob, in Luke’s genealogy it is Heli. By claiming that Luke’s genealogy is of Mary, Heli becomes Mary’s father and Joseph’s father-in-law.

Sadly, Christendom’s far-fetched resolution to the Gospel’s conflicting genealogies has satisfied the unlettered minds of billions of parishioners worldwide.

Smartass

I guess I'm a simple atheist, and not privy to high-falutin' apologetics, it's obvious they made a story up about the birth of Jesus and didn't think through the consistency of it. The birth myth was created BEFORE the Catholic church figured out that Jesus was born of a virgin, literally conceived of God. All of the apologism is trying to patch up their major faux-pas that takes Jesus out of the Davidic lineage due to the later virgin birth assertion/misinterpretation.

They're too clever by half. Laugh out load

I guess us knuckle-draggin' atheists aren't supposed to notice.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
31-10-2015, 07:21 AM
RE: Discussion with a Fundie about The OT
(31-10-2015 06:17 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(30-10-2015 08:12 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Happy to oblige you as always Alla. Teaching you religion's fallacies seems to be a consistent issue Big Grin

The genealogies of Jesus present a particularly embarrassing example of why the gospel writers are not reliable historians. Matthew gives a genealogy of Jesus consisting of 28 names from David down to Joseph. Luke gives a reverse genealogy of Jesus consisting up 43 names from Joseph back to David. They each purport to prove that Jesus is of royal blood, though neither of them explains why Joseph genealogy is even relevant if he was not Jesus' father: remember, according to the story Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Ghost. Matthew's line goes from David's son Solomon, while Luke's goes from David's son Nathan. The two genealogies could not have been the same person.

Another problem is that Luke's genealogy of Jesus goes through Nathan, which was not the royal line. Nor could Matthew's genealogy be the Royal line after Jeconiah because the divine prophecy says of Jeconiah that "no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:30)

Even if Luke's line is truly through Mary, Luke reports that Mary was a cousin to Elizabeth, who was of the tribe of Levi, not the royal line. All of which is irrelevant as according to the fable; god was the father, not Joseph. The anonymous authors were desperate to establish a royal line to fulfill the “prophesy”…it seems making it up as you go was a popular concept back then.

According to Christian teachings, Jesus had only a human Jewish mother, and was not related to Joseph. A human Jewish father, however is essential for anyone to be a legitimate heir to the throne of David, which the real messiah will be.

Mary’s genealogy is completely irrelevant to Jesus’ supposed lineage to King David. For good reason, nowhere in the New Testament is Mary’s genealogy recorded. As mentioned above, matrilineal ancestry is irrelevant to tribe identification. Both the first chapter of Matthew and in the third chapter of Luke contain a putative genealogy of Joseph alone. Although these two genealogies completely contradict each other, neither suggests that Mary was a descendant of king of David. Joseph’s genealogy is irrelevant to Jesus because according to two out of four Gospels claim that Joseph was not Jesus’ father. The author of the Book of Mark, the earliest of the four Gospels, knows nothing of a virgin birth, and accordingly, begins his book with the baptism of Jesus. The Book of John contains no infancy narrative.

It should be noted that both Catholic and Protestant traditions hold that whereas Matthew’s genealogy is that of Joseph, Luke’s genealogy is of Mary. Although this tradition is nowhere to be found in the New Testament, it was a necessary doctrine for the Church to adopt.

Nowhere in the third Gospel, or in the entire New Testament, for that matter, is there a claim that Mary was a descendant of the House of David. On the contrary, Luke plainly asserts that it is Joseph who was from the House of David, not Mary.

"To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary." (Luke 1:27)

In fact, Luke claims that Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth, who he says was a descendant of Aaron the high priest, placing her in the tribe of Levi, not David’s tribe of Judah. Moreover, in Luke 2:4, the author writes that the reason it was necessary for Joseph and Mary to return to Bethlehem was because it was Joseph, not Mary, who was from the House of David. uhoh.

"And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David." (Luke 2:4)

There are a number of reasons why the Church sought to claim that Luke’s genealogy of Jesus is traced through Mary’s line. To begin with, Paul claims in Romans 1:3 that Jesus was from the seed of David after the flesh. This has always been understood to mean that Paul was claiming that King David was the biological ancestor of Jesus. At the time when Paul penned the Book of Romans, he was completely unaware that Christendom would eventually claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. Consequently, the Church desperately needed Paul’s statement to correlate with the virgin-birth story.

This dilemma was solved by the assertion that whereas Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus was traced through Joseph’s line, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus was through Mary’s lineage. In this way, Jesus could now be from the seed of David after the flesh through Luke’s genealogy. Likewise, establishing Mary’s lineage to King David, Luke’s genealogy ostensibly solves the problem of what to do with Romans 1:3 (Paul), and enables the Church to claim a physical link between Jesus and King David.

Finally, it seeks to resolve an awkward discrepancy between the conflicting genealogies contained in the books of Matthew and Luke. Whereas in Matthew’s genealogy, Joseph’s father is Jacob, in Luke’s genealogy it is Heli. By claiming that Luke’s genealogy is of Mary, Heli becomes Mary’s father and Joseph’s father-in-law.

Sadly, Christendom’s far-fetched resolution to the Gospel’s conflicting genealogies has satisfied the unlettered minds of billions of parishioners worldwide.

Smartass

I guess I'm a simple atheist, and not privy to high-falutin' apologetics, it's obvious they made a story up about the birth of Jesus and didn't think through the consistency of it. The birth myth was created BEFORE the Catholic church figured out that Jesus was born of a virgin, literally conceived of God. All of the apologism is trying to patch up their major faux-pas that takes Jesus out of the Davidic lineage due to the later virgin birth assertion/misinterpretation.

They're too clever by half. Laugh out load

I guess us knuckle-draggin' atheists aren't supposed to notice.

I agree Big Grin

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: