Roz Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Both genealogies can, however, produce thousands of apologetical gymnasts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottsman Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 You will never convince Christians on the genealogy issue. I'm an apostate and I'm still convinced its legit. The resurrection disparities however I had never heard of. I will be sure to ask Christians which resurrection story they will be celebrating this Easter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 hey Centauri, great dissection of CARM. This might deserve a separate thread, or maybe there's no good answer. Anyway: given how bad the two genealogies are, do you have a view on what the two evangelists were trying to accomplish with the genealogies they produced? It seems to me that they obviously wanted to link Jesus to David to add credibility to Jesus as the expected king. The virgin birth throws a wrench in that, which Luke (or someone) attempts to get around by adding the qualifier (as was supposed) to the text. Luke 3:23(ESV) Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, Luke 3:23 (YLT) And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph, Luke 3:23 (NRSV) He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli, Mark gives no genealogy or virgin birth story and Paul makes no mention of it either. Paul indicates that Jesus was the product of a direct biological father, not the product of a supernatural impregnation. Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; Matthew and Luke wanted to link Jesus to David but also wanted to elevate Jesus in status from other birth events. I suspect this is a case of wanting it both ways while ignoring the complications. This is my best guess at this time. Both Matthew and Luke botched the genealogy even if the virgin birth issue is cast aside. Neither genealogy can produce a king. Poor fiction remains poor, despite apologetics. Given the multiple sources of the numerous books of the Bible (as well as the books that were not chosen by certain humans to be part of the Bible), given the numerous centuries over which they were first written down (in many cases only after centuries of oral tradition) and given the lack of anyone caring about (or the inability of anyone to even observe or understand) the overall inconsistencies and lack of veracity of the combined work, it is not surprising at all that the Bible is as it is. Compare, for instance, the written fictional works of JRR Tolkien (and Christopher Tolkien), throughout the Silmarillion, The Hobbit, the Lord of the Rings, The Lost Tales, and The Children of Hurin, among other works. Yes, there are occasional inconsistencies and gotchas. But they are few are far between. Very few and very far between. Tolkien's work regarding Middle Earth is an example of good cohesive fiction, on a massive fictional tapestry. The Bible is an example of poor fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 hey Centauri, great dissection of CARM. This might deserve a separate thread, or maybe there's no good answer. Anyway: given how bad the two genealogies are, do you have a view on what the two evangelists were trying to accomplish with the genealogies they produced? It seems to me that they obviously wanted to link Jesus to David to add credibility to Jesus as the expected king. The virgin birth throws a wrench in that, which Luke (or someone) attempts to get around by adding the qualifier (as was supposed) to the text. Luke 3:23(ESV) Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, Luke 3:23 (YLT) And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph, Luke 3:23 (NRSV) He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli, Mark gives no genealogy or virgin birth story and Paul makes no mention of it either. Paul indicates that Jesus was the product of a direct biological father, not the product of a supernatural impregnation. Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; Matthew and Luke wanted to link Jesus to David but also wanted to elevate Jesus in status from other birth events. I suspect this is a case of wanting it both ways while ignoring the complications. This is my best guess at this time. Both Matthew and Luke botched the genealogy even if the virgin birth issue is cast aside. Neither genealogy can produce a king. Poor fiction remains poor, despite apologetics. Given the multiple sources of the numerous books of the Bible (as well as the books that were not chosen by certain humans to be part of the Bible), given the numerous centuries over which they were first written down (in many cases only after centuries of oral tradition) and given the lack of anyone caring about (or the inability of anyone to even observe or understand) the overall inconsistencies and lack of veracity of the combined work, it is not surprising at all that the Bible is as it is. Compare, for instance, the written fictional works of JRR Tolkien (and Christopher Tolkien), throughout the Silmarillion, The Hobbit, the Lord of the Rings, The Lost Tales, and The Children of Hurin, among other works. Yes, there are occasional inconsistencies and gotchas. But they are few are far between. Very few and very far between. Tolkien's work regarding Middle Earth is an example of good cohesive fiction, on a massive fictional tapestry. The Bible is an example of poor fiction. I don't think J.R.R. Tolkien considered the Bible poor fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts