mcdaddy Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 So since the Geneology in Luke traces ancestry of Jesus all the way back to Adam, what's you guys ideas on how they came up with that if all the main people (Jesus, David, Moses and Abraham ) were most likely not even real? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 That was one of the things that did it for me. It was very easy for me to discount the old testament, so once I found that link to the new testament that made it easy to discount as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overcame Faith Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Try comparing the geneology in Luke to the one in Matthew. One of the things that I used early on to justify my deconversion was who was the father of Joseph (the alleged father of Jesus - or step father, or whatever). The two do not match up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 In Bible math 41 = 42 http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/42.html Also regarding the difference between the Matthew and Luke genealogies from David to Jesus: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/1.html#6 Except for David at one end and Jesus at the other, there are only three names in the two lists that are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Along the same lines of what has been said, here is how I tackled this particular issue in the Contradictions section of a lengthy letter I wrote last year: Jesus' Genealogies Matthew traces Jesus' genealogy chronologically from Abraham through Joseph (Matt 1:1-17), claiming that there are three sets of "fourteen generations" from Abraham to Christ, which equals 42 generations. However, when you count the generations listed in Matthew, there are only 41. As such, Matthew contradicts itself here. A text note in my KJV Bible says that there are a few ancient manuscripts with an additional name Jakim (in Matt 1:11), which some could argue resolves that contradiction because it brings the total generations to 42. However, the name is not in the actual Biblical text, nor is it even mentioned in most Bibles' text notes. Even if Jakim had been included in the original text of Matthew, where it lists the three sets of "fourteen generations," one of those sets of 14 generations is "from David until the carrying away into Babylon" (1:17). Where the name Jakim is inserted would make for 15 generations there, and therefore we would still have a contradiction here. Moving on, we see that Luke traces Jesus' genealogy in reverse-chronology through Joseph all the way back to Adam (Luke 3:23-37). The interesting thing when comparing the Matthew and Luke's genealogies is that the sections between David and Joseph are completely different except for three names, Salathiel, Zorobabel and Eliakim (Matt 1:12-13; Luke 3:27,29), and one similar name, Matthan (Matt 1:15) and Matthat (Luke 3:24)! Of those names, Eliakim cannot be the same person in the two genealogies because Matthew has him as a descendant of Salathiel and Zorobabel (Matt 1:12-13) while Luke has him as their ancestor (Luke 3:27,29)! So, with Salathiel and Zorobabel being the same, and accepting Matthan and Matthat as possibly referring to the same person, we are left with 22 names in Matthew and 37 names in Luke (between David and Joseph) that do not match! In fact, Matthew says that Joseph was the son of Jacob (Matt 1:16), while Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli (Luke 3:23), so the genealogies don't even agree a mere two generations back from Jesus! In addition, the portion in Luke's genealogy that traces Jesus back to Abraham (Luke 3:23-34) has 56 generations, which is 15 more generations than in Matthew's genealogy. These genealogies are utterly contradictory! There are a few ways that Christians try to get out of this conundrum. One suggestion is that Luke was actually tracing Mary's genealogy instead of Joseph's. However, Luke does not mention Mary in his genealogy, but it specifically lists Joseph (Luke 3:23)! This is clearly meant as Joseph's lineage. Another suggestion is that there may have been some adoptions in one of the genealogies, making it a legal lineage instead of a physical one. However, there is no indication of that in either genealogy, so it is basically a shot in the dark. Also, it fails to account for the 15 extra generations in Luke's genealogy. In addition, Jesus was supposed to be "the seed of David" (Romans 1:3), which means physical descendant, so adoptions wouldn't count and would therefore render such a genealogy meaningless. And, speaking of "the seed of David" (Rom 1:3) and physical lineage, both Matthew and Luke trace Jesus' genealogy through Joseph (Matt 1:16; Luke 3:23), whom they both claim was not Jesus' physical father (Matt 1:18-23; Luke 1:26-38)! As such, both of these contradictory genealogies are completely useless, because they do not establish that Jesus is a physical descendant of David! In addition to that, kingship was traced through the men, and with Jesus not having a physical father, there is no male through which to trace his kingship! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzy Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 How did they come up with it? The same way as the Greeks came up with the idea that some of their heros came from gods. Or the Romans came up with the idea that some of their emperors are descendants of gods. Talking about Jesus' genealogy, Matthew made a pretty big blunder with including Jachoniah in it, since about Jeconiah the OT says: Thus says the LORD: 'Write this man down as childless, A man who shall not prosper in his days; For none of his descendants shall prosper, Sitting on the throne of David, And ruling anymore in Judah.'" Jeremiah (22:28-30) Oops! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 How did they come up with it? The same way as the Greeks came up with the idea that some of their heros came from gods. Or the Romans came up with the idea that some of their emperors are descendants of gods. Talking about Jesus' genealogy, Matthew made a pretty big blunder with including Jachoniah in it, since about Jeconiah the OT says: Thus says the LORD: 'Write this man down as childless, A man who shall not prosper in his days; For none of his descendants shall prosper, Sitting on the throne of David, And ruling anymore in Judah.'" Jeremiah (22:28-30) Oops! I wish I could give you more than a +1 for that. That was a brilliant connection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephie Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 To me the genealogies seem rather pointless since Mary was virgin when she concieved, therefore Jesus' father was God not Joseph. It makes no sense and pretty damning evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted March 31, 2012 Author Share Posted March 31, 2012 And Adam is literally called The Son of God in Luke. But yet Adam's not considered the fourth part of the quaternary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 And Adam is literally called The Son of God in Luke. But yet Adam's not considered the fourth part of the quaternary. I knew there had to be a Quadrinity, and now we have the proof! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts