cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

[Redemptionsong]

I have already given you many examples of the Bible unreliability in regards to history, in my previous posts.

That you want me to raise more issues, clearly demonstrate that you haven’t addressed points from my previous replies or you don’t understand them.

I have already made it known to TagliatelliMonster that l don't like to answer multiple questions in a single post.

Give me a single issue that you feel is an inconsistency in the Bible, and l will respond to that single issue.

 

[Astrophile]

But, even if we limit our acceptance of Josephus' reliability to events close to his own lifetime, an issue arises. Why? Because this same Josephus records information about John the Baptist, Jesus, and the brother of Jesus, James the Just. Josephus was not a Christian, but he was very aware of the Christian movement within his country.

Josephus may have been 'very aware of the Christian movement within his country', but he didn't record much information about it. During the first year of the war of 66-73 AD he was appointed general of the Jewish forces in Galilee, and in The Jewish War, III, 500-520 he gives a detailed description of the province, mentioning Capernaum by name. However, he says nothing about Jesus and his followers being Galileans, nor does he mention anybody in Galilee who knew anything about Jesus or his disciples.

Although Josephus records information about John the Baptist, Jesus and James the Just, he says nothing about any of Jesus's disciples. There is nothing about Peter, Andrew, James or John, or Judas Iscariot, or Stephen or Paul. There is not even anything about Agrippa I's execution of James the brother of John (Acts of the Apostles 12:2-3), the sudden deaths of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts of the Apostles 5:1-12), although this is said to have been generally known (Acts of the Apostles 5:11-12), or about Paul's interrogation by Agrippa II and Festus (Acts of the Apostles 26:1-32). Why does Josephus omit all these people and these events?

 

[Brian2]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "skeptics". I have a rough idea though.
And I can only tell you that you are wrong.

This is not "skeptic apologetics". It rather is "academic historian consensus".

If it is academic historian consensus then it is a consensus of historians who have made the assumption of a spiritual book like the Bible, that the spiritual bits, the miracles, the prophecies etc are not true and studied it with that in mind. This makes the conclusions they come to, using this assumption, circular reasoning.

For the same reason that I can't take Russian State Media as further information for what is actually happening in Ukraine. Or when they say that Zelensky is really a neo-nazi.

So the Bible is presumed to be false until shown to be true, even with such things as Pontius Pilate when @Redemptionsong even gave a Josephus quote showing that not everything Pilate did was ruthless and bloodthirsty.

It rather is "there's no reason to think it is right unless supported by extra-biblical evidence"

Subtle, yet important, difference.

Not so subtle when it is the Bible that is presumed false when it and other historical information disagree.

No.

It's just about the bible having an agenda and incentive to present a specific picture of certain events.

I'ld also accept claims by Russian state media if they were corroborated by sources that aren't under the control of Russians.

Without such, one should be careful about simply accepting it at face value.

That is a good way of hiding from what the Bible says. If you want anything in it to be confirmed before you will believe it even in the historical narratives without miracles etc you will never accept the miracle narratives (even though the truth of Jesus miracle working is confirmed by the Talmud but attributed to Satan----------------- that's actually strange when the Jews these days claim that Satan is one of the good guys, a servant of God----------------- I guess they change doctrines over the years.)

Consider how you think about the Quran, the bagavad ghita, the iliad,...
Do you wage a "war" on those books?

Or is it rather just a case of you requiring additional evidence other then the book claiming whatever they claim, in order to feel justified in accepting them?

Why don't you take the Quran's word for it when it says that an angel appeared to mohammed in a cave to dictate the divine message of the quran, for example?

Yes probably an angel appeared to Mohamed and he thought it was a messenger from God. Same with the angel that appeared to Baha'u'llah.
The Hindu books I do not wage a war on even if I don't think anything has been confirmed historically. I stick to waging war on the philosophy taught there.
The Book of Mormon is easy to wage war on if I want to but I usually stick to the Mormon teachings and their discrepancies with the Bible.

 

[Brian2]

Again, no.
This is just historical science.
This is the consensus of scholars who study this stuff. Many of which, btw, aren't even atheists but christians.

Go complain to them.

It is using the same anti spiritual assumptions I mentioned in my the previous post even if those who do it are Christians. That is up to them but what I am concerned about is atheists wanting to say "look at what the historians say" even when they probably know of the assumptions used and the circular reasoning that comes from it, especially when deciding on the authors and dates of writing of the Bible books. It's not very honest to anyone else and not to yourself.

No. It's just based on the historical facts.
You are projecting. Your presumption is that it is all true and therefor it must be like you already believe it to be - eventhough the evidence paints a different picture.

Funny how you falsely accuse others of mistakes you yourself are making.

I do believe it is true, but the actual evidence points to pre 70AD writing dates and it is only the presumption of prophecies not being true that makes anyone even want to consider a post 70AD date or a date really close to 70AD.

Such as?

Josephus on Pilate for example.

There's nothing wrong with it.
It's those records that present a different picture of Pilate then the bible does.
This is well known in the world of historical scholarship.

Take everything we know about Pilate from conventional history (ie, all sources except the bible) and then put that next to the bible. What we get from the bible is a serious character break.

And historians, like in the link I shared, also explain why that is.
It's because Mark isn't written to be historical. It is instead written with an agenda in mind, to paint a specific picture. To put stuff in a specific pre-determined light. Not necessarily to reflect the actual truth.

As I said Redemptionsong gave a Josephus quote which agrees with the gospel picture of him.

Please stop with that nonsense already. First, I haven't made that claim. Second, this stuff is what historians present, not "skeptics". Many of these historians are even christians themselves.

As for a historical Jesus... we actually do not know if there was such a person.
I figure chances are quite high a historical Jesus existed. Like I said, I don't think religions like that form in a vacuum. Something inspired it. A historical Jesus, or in fact even several people who through story telling and "mythifying" were merged into one person and deified.

I think that's a reasonable stance to take.
But we don't know, because there is zero extra biblical evidence for this.

But again, I think it stands to reason and I have no problem at all with assuming it to be the case.

Some historians have an axe to grind. "Let's just ignore the Bible as being lies and speak disparagingly about the external historical evidence of Jesus and we can make a case for the non existence of Jesus." It is spoken of as at least radical by other historians and I am not so diplomatic.
When you speak of historians you should remember that you are talking about people who study a spiritual book with the presumption that it is not true history,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and yet you are probably more likely to call their books "history books" and the more respectful and conservative history books, nonsense.
You are most certainly not going to find out if the Bible is true by only accepting what those against the truth of the Bible have to say about it.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Josephus may have been 'very aware of the Christian movement within his country', but he didn't record much information about it. During the first year of the war of 66-73 AD he was appointed general of the Jewish forces in Galilee, and in The Jewish War, III, 500-520 he gives a detailed description of the province, mentioning Capernaum by name. However, he says nothing about Jesus and his followers being Galileans, nor does he mention anybody in Galilee who knew anything about Jesus or his disciples.

Although Josephus records information about John the Baptist, Jesus and James the Just, he says nothing about any of Jesus's disciples. There is nothing about Peter, Andrew, James or John, or Judas Iscariot, or Stephen or Paul. There is not even anything about Agrippa I's execution of James the brother of John (Acts of the Apostles 12:2-3), the sudden deaths of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts of the Apostles 5:1-12), although this is said to have been generally known (Acts of the Apostles 5:11-12), or about Paul's interrogation by Agrippa II and Festus (Acts of the Apostles 26:1-32). Why does Josephus omit all these people and these events?

This is an interesting question, and one that needs addressing.

Firstly, Josephus is a member of the royal and priestly line, and some of his relatives became high priests. He clearly lived a privileged life, and was respected by a number of emperors, and other high ranking Romans, for his learning and historical accounts. We know this because Agrippa ll actually sent him letters with information for inclusion in his 'Antiquities'.

So, the simple explanation for Josephus' silence about the disciples of Jesus is that they were poor and did not mix in his circles.

The case of Paul is somewhat different. In Acts 24, 25 and 26, much is written about Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea, and the episode provides us with an insight into the lives of Felix, Festus, and Agrippa ll (as well as Drusilla and Bernice).

Paul was provided with an opportunity to preach the Gospel to Agrippa, and having heard his words, Agrippa said, 'Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian'.

Now, the impact of Paul's preaching, which was listened to by a company of men and women, including Bernice, would not have been without impact. The conclusion reached in judgement against Paul was that, 'This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds'.

Since Agrippa knew Josephus well, and corresponded with him, it would have been mighty odd had the topic of Christ not been raised between them, especially given their own personal knowledge of Judaism, and the belief in a Messiah. But, at this early stage, there was no Christianity as a religion distinct from Judaism. The Christians were seen as Jews who followed after a man claiming to be the Christ - which was not that unusual at the time. Such claimants came and went. The Christian movement, at least in the early stages, was also a movement amongst the poor, not the rich and wealthy. Josephus, representing the privileged elite, did not generally mix with such believers.

But, did Josephus know more about the Christians than he was prepared to publish? I think it's quite possible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

From the passage l quoted, it is clear that Josephus did not depict Pilate as a merciless ruler.

Yeah, it's called "cherry picking".

Excuse me while I value the concensus of actual historians more then the mere cherry-picking-inspired opinions of a believer with a religious incentive to ignore everything that doesn't fit his a priori beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I often hear from people who say, 'l was a Christian but...', and l immediately think that there's something amiss.

Exactly. And that's the problem with your a priori dogmatic bias.
You can't even imagine the possibility that someone who leaves the religion, does so for legit reasons.

For the same reason, you are unable to imagine the possibility that evidence of conventional history doesn't match the claims of the bible. This mindset of yours will make sure that whenever evidence comes up that shows such, you assume that there MUST be something wrong with the evidence, or at least... that there MUST be "some other evidence" still undiscovered which would then "fix" this problem.

We have seen this behavior throughout this discussion.

 

[Brian2]

Yeah, it's called "quote mining".

Excuse me while I value the concensus of actual historians more then the mere quote-mine-inspired opinions of a believer with a religious incentive to ignore everything that doesn't fit his a priori beliefs.

I think you can see both sides of Pilate without ignoring any quotes. So why do you want to ignore the Josephus quote,,,,,,,,,,,, was Josephus a Christian and so therefore not to be trusted? Are you an atheist and therefore not to be trusted to look at the whole picture but instead to "quote mine". Well that is what you are doing if you ignore Josephus,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and of course you are also ignoring the gospel accounts about Pilate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If it is academic historian consensus then it is a consensus of historians who have made the assumption of a spiritual book like the Bible, that the spiritual bits, the miracles, the prophecies etc are not true and studied it with that in mind.

This is a perfect example of the exact behavior I pointed out in my previous post.


WHY would they assume that what the bible says is all true??????

IF what the bible says is all true, then whatever they find from conventional, non-biblical sources, should AT LEAST be consistent with the bible.

And it is not.

Give me one good reason why historians should "just assume" that everything the bible has to say is correct?


Also: blatant shift of the burden of proof.

This makes the conclusions they come to, using this assumption, circular reasoning.

//mega facepalm

You don't seem to understand what circular reasoning is.

Hiint: it's NOT just not assuming that some religious book is all true.

So the Bible is presumed to be false until shown to be true

As is the case with EVERY claim.

"An undetectable dragon ate my homework".

Would you presume that to be false "until shown to be true"?
Or would you presume that to be TRUE "until shown false"?

, even with such things as Pontius Pilate when @Redemptionsong even gave a Josephus quote showing that not everything Pilate did was ruthless and bloodthirsty.

It's called cherry picking.
One quote does not paint a character picture. And there's more to that story as well.
I'm not bothering any more to explain it further. Clearly it leads nowhere.

At this point, all I can do is point out the flaws in the approach and how it is utterly and obviously tainted by a priori dogmatic beliefs.

Not so subtle when it is the Bible that is presumed false when it and other historical information disagree.

When passages of the bible are shown to be false by actual historical evidence, then there is no "presumption". Then it is a conclusion based on evidence.

That is a good way of hiding from what the Bible says.

There's no hiding at all.

If you want anything in it to be confirmed before you will believe it even in the historical narratives without miracles etc you will never accept the miracle narratives

First, why would you believe a claim before it being confirmed or at least properly supported?
Second: false. If there would be extra-biblical independent reporting of certain events, then that would be strong evidence. But there is no such reporting. All we have are religious faith claims in religious scriptures, written down by believers.

It's no better then Russian state media "reporting" how Zelensky is really a nazi and how Ukraine is currently preparing a dirty bomb. I do not believe those claims. Likely, neither do you.

Now, if UN inspectors go to Ukrainian sites and conclude that nuclear substances are missing and that certain suspicious activity is going on...then that's another story.

But not if it's JUST Russia. They have incentive to lie, exaggerate, twist,... It's also very possible that those reporting it really believe it, but that they act on very bad intelligence.

Yes probably an angel appeared to Mohamed and he thought it was a messenger from God.

In other words, you're not just accepting what the Quran says at face value.

 

[gnostic]

Why can't you just take the Bible record as further information about Pontius Pilate and his desire not to cause trouble from the Jews at the Passover when probably many thousands of them were visiting Jerusalem. And his desire not to have any bad reports about him from the Jews going back to Rome.

Because there are no gospels that were contemporary to Pontius Pilate, during his time as governor of Judaea. The gospels were written decades later.

Older than the gospels were letters by Paul, at least, the ones that were authentic (some were clearly only attributed to Paul, but he wasn’t their author), were written before the oldest of the synoptic gospels of Mark

But Paul never met Jesus, so anything he wrote about Jesus’ teachings were “second-hand”.

Even when Josephus was not writing contemporary to Pilate, as Josephus wasn’t born during time of Jesus’ ministry.

However, Josephus was of family noble aristocrats (his mother and the ancestors on her side of the family), and who also had tied to the temple (his father was priest, as were their ancestors) before its destruction in 70 CE.

So Josephus knew where to find any Jewish records, to use as his sources. Plus his friendship with Titus, gave him open access to Roman records, therefore to Roman sources.

That’s what make Josephus more reliable than that of any of the four gospel authors, who we don’t know the names of, let alone know their sources.

Plus the gospels of Matthew and Luke, were written near the same time as when Josephus was writing Antiquities.

These two gospels are the only ones that narrate Mary pregnancy and Jesus’ birth, but some how, writing some times in the 80s, they wrote of Joseph, Mary and Jesus when they weren’t around to dictate their life when Jesus was born.

Not only the 2 genealogies differed from each other after King David, the 2 gospels also narrated 2 completely different narratives.

That showed the unreliability of the gospels.

 

[wellwisher]

Because there are no gospels that were contemporary to Pontius Pilate, during his time as governor of Judaea. The gospels were written decades later.

Older than the gospels were letters by Paul, at least, the ones that were authentic (some were clearly only attributed to Paul, but he wasn’t their author), were written before the oldest of the synoptic gospels of Mark

But Paul never met Jesus, so anything he wrote about Jesus’ teachings were “second-hand”.

Even when Josephus was not writing contemporary to Pilate, as Josephus wasn’t born during time of Jesus’ ministry.

However, Josephus was of family noble aristocrats (his mother and the ancestors on her side of the family), and who also had tied to the temple (his father was priest, as were their ancestors) before its destruction in 70 CE.

So Josephus knew where to find any Jewish records, to use as his sources. Plus his friendship with Titus, gave him open access to Roman records, therefore to Roman sources.

That’s what make Josephus more reliable than that of any of the four gospel authors, who we don’t know the names of, let alone know their sources.

Plus the gospels of Matthew and Luke, were written near the same time as when Josephus was writing Antiquities.

These two gospels are the only ones that narrate Mary pregnancy and Jesus’ birth, but some how, writing some times in the 80s, they wrote of Joseph, Mary and Jesus when they weren’t around to dictate their life when Jesus was born.

Not only the 2 genealogies differed from each other after King David, the 2 gospels also narrated 2 completely different narratives.

That showed the unreliability of the gospels.

The earliest Christians were targeted by the Romans. Christianity was not a clique religion but was very inclusive. It was more connected to the poor; blessed are the poor, and was called the religion of the slaves.

Slaves were needed to support the pretentious lifestyles of the rich and powerful of Rome and all countries of the time. The religion of slaves was a threat to the status quo and had to go, since it made the slaves think; fear of a slave rebellion.

Like the Atheists of today, Rome made early Christianity the bogeyman, censored Christianity; book burning, and then used revisionist history to make it fit their narrative.

Christians, due to fear of death, needed to go underground or be rounded up and killed. It took some time for the dust to settle, before they could reappear, again. In the end, Rome would welcome Christianity and made it the official religion of Rome; Holy Roman Empire.

My guess is the merger of Rome and Christianity, needed to bury the old wounds from the first few centuries. This early period was not stressed in the merger but rather the future was the goal. Records of those early days are not well documented, less they create political problems.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yeah, it's called "cherry picking".

Excuse me while I value the concensus of actual historians more then the mere cherry-picking-inspired opinions of a believer with a religious incentive to ignore everything that doesn't fit his a priori beliefs.

'Cherry picking' is choosing one cherry from amongst many.

I'm interested to know which other contemporary historians you think provide a better account of Pilate's character?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Exactly. And that's the problem with your a priori dogmatic bias.
You can't even imagine the possibility that someone who leaves the religion, does so for legit reasons.

For the same reason, you are unable to imagine the possibility that evidence of conventional history doesn't match the claims of the bible. This mindset of yours will make sure that whenever evidence comes up that shows such, you assume that there MUST be something wrong with the evidence, or at least... that there MUST be "some other evidence" still undiscovered which would then "fix" this problem.

We have seen this behavior throughout this discussion.

If you could provide evidence that was credible then l might believe it!

As it is, you make vacuous claims, and, when challenged, have nothing with which to support the claims.

What l have done, just to satisfy you, is to resort to a non-Christian 'conventional' source, and to demonstrate the historical accuracy of the Bible from this source. Yet, and without surprise, l find that you now question Josephus, the most reliable of non-Christian sources for this period in Jewish history.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Older than the gospels were letters by Paul, at least, the ones that were authentic (some were clearly only attributed to Paul, but he wasn’t their author), were written before the oldest of the synoptic gospels of Mark

But Paul never met Jesus, so anything he wrote about Jesus’ teachings were “second-hand”.

What evidence do you have to support your dating of the books of the Bible? It's time that this claim was also examined carefully.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Not only the 2 genealogies differed from each other after King David, the 2 gospels also narrated 2 completely different narratives.

This really does demonstrate a lack of understanding of the two genealogies.

Would you like this explained, as well?

 

[Redemptionsong]

This really does demonstrate a lack of understanding of the two genealogies.

Would you like this explained, as well?

The Genealogies of Jesus
R.A.Torrey
1. The genealogy given in Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, his father in the eyes of the law. The genealogy given in Luke is the genealogy of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and is the human genealogy of Jesus Christ in actual fact. The Gospel of Matthew was written for Jews. All through it Joseph is prominent, Mary is scarcely mentioned. In Luke, on the other hand, Mary is the chief personage in the whole account of the Saviour’s conception and birth. Joseph is brought in only incidentally and because he was Mary’s husband. In all of this, of course, there is a deep significance.

2. In Matthew, Jesus appears as the Messiah. In Luke He appears as ‘the Son of Man’, our Brother and Redeemer, who belongs to the whole race and claims kindred with all kinds and conditions of men. So in Matthew, the genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph and Jesus, because all the predictions and promises touching the Messiah are fulfilled in Him. But in Luke the genealogy ascends from Jesus to Adam, because the genealogy is being traced back to the head of the whole race, and shows the relation of the Second Adam to the First.

3. Joseph’s line is the strictly royal line from David to Joseph. In Luke, though the line of descent is from David, it is not the royal line. In this Jesus is descended from David through Nathan, David’s son indeed, but not in the royal line, and the list follows a line quite distinct from the royal line.

4. The Messiah, according to prediction, was to be the actual son of David according to the flesh (2 Samuel:12-19; Psalm 89:3, 4,3 4-37; 132:11; Acts 2:30; 13:22,23; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8). These prophecies are fulfilled by Jesus being the Son of Mary, who was a lineal descendant of David, though not in the royal line. Joseph, who was of the royal line, was not his father according to the flesh, but was his father in the eyes of the law.

5. Mary was the descendant of David through her father, Heli. It is true that Luke 2:30 says that Joseph was the son of Heli. The simple explanation of this is that , Mary being a woman, her name according to Jewish usage could not come into the genealogy, males alone forming the line, so Joseph’s name is introduced in the place of Mary’s, he being Mary’s husband; Heli was his father-in-law and so Joseph is called the son of Heli, and the line thus completed. While Joseph was son-in-law of Heli, according to the flesh he was in actual fact the son of Jacob (Matt.1:16).

6. Two genealogies are absolutely necessary to trace the lineage of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the one the royal and legal, the other the natural and literal, and these two genealogies we find, the legal and royal in Matthew’s Gospel, the Gospel of law and kingship; the natural and literal in Luke’s, the Gospel of humanity.

7. We are told in Jeremiah 22:30 any descendant of Jeconiah could not come to the throne of David, and Joseph was of this line, and while Joseph’s genealogy furnished the royal line for Jesus, his son before the law, nevertheless Jeremiah’s prediction is fulfilled to the very letter, for Jesus, strictly speaking, was not Joseph’s descendant and therefore was not of the seed of Jeconiah. If Jesus had been the son of Joseph in reality, He could not have come to the throne, but He is Mary’s son through Nathan, and can come to the throne legally by her marrying Joseph and so clearing His way legally to it.’

 

[Redemptionsong]

Because there are no gospels that were contemporary to Pontius Pilate, during his time as governor of Judaea. The gospels were written decades later.

Older than the gospels were letters by Paul, at least, the ones that were authentic (some were clearly only attributed to Paul, but he wasn’t their author), were written before the oldest of the synoptic gospels of Mark

But Paul never met Jesus, so anything he wrote about Jesus’ teachings were “second-hand”.

Even when Josephus was not writing contemporary to Pilate, as Josephus wasn’t born during time of Jesus’ ministry.

However, Josephus was of family noble aristocrats (his mother and the ancestors on her side of the family), and who also had tied to the temple (his father was priest, as were their ancestors) before its destruction in 70 CE.

So Josephus knew where to find any Jewish records, to use as his sources. Plus his friendship with Titus, gave him open access to Roman records, therefore to Roman sources.

That’s what make Josephus more reliable than that of any of the four gospel authors, who we don’t know the names of, let alone know their sources.

Plus the gospels of Matthew and Luke, were written near the same time as when Josephus was writing Antiquities.

These two gospels are the only ones that narrate Mary pregnancy and Jesus’ birth, but some how, writing some times in the 80s, they wrote of Joseph, Mary and Jesus when they weren’t around to dictate their life when Jesus was born.

Not only the 2 genealogies differed from each other after King David, the 2 gospels also narrated 2 completely different narratives.

That showed the unreliability of the gospels.

Here is a chart showing the dates that scholars (25 of them) provide for events in the book of Acts. This is important when trying to ascertain the date that the book was completed.

Not one of these scholars dates the imprisonment of Paul later than 65 CE! This means that Paul was put to death in Rome at about the time that the Jewish Wars began (66 CE). His writings cannot have been later than this date, and since they contain information about the Last Supper, we can assume that the Gospels were already in use before this time. If the Gospels were not actually circulating, then the information that was later published (also before 66 CE) in writing was already circulating in an oral form.

Then you make the claim that Paul never knew the 'real' Jesus. Yet, all the Gospels record the resurrection of Jesus, meaning that he was seen alive on earth for forty days after rising from the dead, on one occasion by 500 people at once [1 Corinthians 15:6]. His ascension was also witnessed. So, following the eyewitness evidence, it follows that Jesus was alive in heaven, and quite capable of making himself known to Paul. He had already made himself known to Peter and other apostles through his Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

It's also remarkable that Festus, the procurator of Judaea, is recorded in Acts as saying to Agrippa II, 'But [the priests] had certain questions against him [Paul] of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.'

 

[gnostic]

The Genealogies of Jesus
R.A.Torrey
1. The genealogy given in Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, his father in the eyes of the law. The genealogy given in Luke is the genealogy of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and is the human genealogy of Jesus Christ in actual fact. The Gospel of Matthew was written for Jews. All through it Joseph is prominent, Mary is scarcely mentioned. In Luke, on the other hand, Mary is the chief personage in the whole account of the Saviour’s conception and birth. Joseph is brought in only incidentally and because he was Mary’s husband. In all of this, of course, there is a deep significance.

2. In Matthew, Jesus appears as the Messiah. In Luke He appears as ‘the Son of Man’, our Brother and Redeemer, who belongs to the whole race and claims kindred with all kinds and conditions of men. So in Matthew, the genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph and Jesus, because all the predictions and promises touching the Messiah are fulfilled in Him. But in Luke the genealogy ascends from Jesus to Adam, because the genealogy is being traced back to the head of the whole race, and shows the relation of the Second Adam to the First.

3. Joseph’s line is the strictly royal line from David to Joseph. In Luke, though the line of descent is from David, it is not the royal line. In this Jesus is descended from David through Nathan, David’s son indeed, but not in the royal line, and the list follows a line quite distinct from the royal line.

4. The Messiah, according to prediction, was to be the actual son of David according to the flesh (2 Samuel:12-19; Psalm 89:3, 4,3 4-37; 132:11; Acts 2:30; 13:22,23; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8). These prophecies are fulfilled by Jesus being the Son of Mary, who was a lineal descendant of David, though not in the royal line. Joseph, who was of the royal line, was not his father according to the flesh, but was his father in the eyes of the law.

5. Mary was the descendant of David through her father, Heli. It is true that Luke 2:30 says that Joseph was the son of Heli. The simple explanation of this is that , Mary being a woman, her name according to Jewish usage could not come into the genealogy, males alone forming the line, so Joseph’s name is introduced in the place of Mary’s, he being Mary’s husband; Heli was his father-in-law and so Joseph is called the son of Heli, and the line thus completed. While Joseph was son-in-law of Heli, according to the flesh he was in actual fact the son of Jacob (Matt.1:16).

6. Two genealogies are absolutely necessary to trace the lineage of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the one the royal and legal, the other the natural and literal, and these two genealogies we find, the legal and royal in Matthew’s Gospel, the Gospel of law and kingship; the natural and literal in Luke’s, the Gospel of humanity.

7. We are told in Jeremiah 22:30 any descendant of Jeconiah could not come to the throne of David, and Joseph was of this line, and while Joseph’s genealogy furnished the royal line for Jesus, his son before the law, nevertheless Jeremiah’s prediction is fulfilled to the very letter, for Jesus, strictly speaking, was not Joseph’s descendant and therefore was not of the seed of Jeconiah. If Jesus had been the son of Joseph in reality, He could not have come to the throne, but He is Mary’s son through Nathan, and can come to the throne legally by her marrying Joseph and so clearing His way legally to it.’

Only Joseph’s name appeared as the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16) and as the son of Heli (Luke 3:23).

No where in ANY of the canonical 4 gospels or the Acts or any of the NT letters stated who were Mary’s parents were.

So none of canonical New Testament texts stated Mary’s father.

Judging by Luke 1, a kinswoman Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist, was a descendant of Aaron (Luke 1:5):

5 In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was descended from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

The relationship between Mary and Elizabeth would implied that Mary too was a descendant of Aaron...something that some modern Christians seemed to blindly ignore, which apparently includes “you”.

Some translations referred to Elizabeth as her “cousin” like KJV, while others referred her as her “relative”.

So no New Testament sources stated who was Mary’s father.

But there was non-canonical source from the Apocrypha that do narrate her birth, childhood: the Gospel of James.

It apocryphal gospel was written in the mid-second century CE. We know it was written in the 2nd century because Clement of Alexandria mentioned

Like the 4th gospels of the 1st century CE, we don’t know who was the real author to the gospel of James. The gospel was attributed to James, Jesus’ half-brother.

It doesn’t matter if the gospel of James wasn’t “canonical”, it is still a source that the early church did accept.

Anyway, it is in this apocryphal gospel that we see that Mary’s parents were Joachim and Anne, and both were considered saints by Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox, and in the Syriac church and Coptic church. That’s how influential this gospel was, despite it being rejected by the Protestant sects, but the Protestant churches did start until about a thousand years later.

Referring Mary’s father being “Heli” (Luke 3:23) don’t exist in any sources other than from interpretive commentaries from the 20th century, eg New Advent Genealogy of Christ (1909).

I am talking about early sources, but you, as well many Protestant or born-again Christians, are relying on apologetic interpretations of the gospels from the 19th and 20th centuries.

Do you really think I care what an American pastor Reuben Archer Torrey think about?

Torrey has taken the gospels out-of-context. I see no rationality in accepting making some imaginary and mental contortions of claims about Mary’s father and genealogy, who blindly ignore sources that do exist.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Only Joseph’s name appeared as the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16) and as the son of Heli (Luke 3:23).

No where in ANY of the canonical 4 gospels or the Acts or any of the NT letters stated who were Mary’s parents were.

So none of canonical New Testament texts stated Mary’s father.

Judging by Luke 1, a kinswoman Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist, was a descendant of Aaron (Luke 1:5):

​

The relationship between Mary and Elizabeth would implied that Mary too was a descendant of Aaron...something that some modern Christians seemed to blindly ignore, which apparently includes “you”.

Some translations referred to Elizabeth as her “cousin” like KJV, while others referred her as her “relative”.

So no New Testament sources stated who was Mary’s father.

But there was non-canonical source from the Apocrypha that do narrate her birth, childhood: the Gospel of James.

It apocryphal gospel was written in the mid-second century CE. We know it was written in the 2nd century because Clement of Alexandria mentioned

Like the 4th gospels of the 1st century CE, we don’t know who was the real author to the gospel of James. The gospel was attributed to James, Jesus’ half-brother.

It doesn’t matter if the gospel of James wasn’t “canonical”, it is still a source that the early church did accept.

Anyway, it is in this apocryphal gospel that we see that Mary’s parents were Joachim and Anne, and both were considered saints by Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox, and in the Syriac church and Coptic church. That’s how influential this gospel was, despite it being rejected by the Protestant sects, but the Protestant churches did start until about a thousand years later.

Referring Mary’s father being “Heli” (Luke 3:23) don’t exist in any sources other than from interpretive commentaries from the 20th century, eg New Advent Genealogy of Christ (1909).

I am talking about early sources, but you, as well many Protestant or born-again Christians, are relying on apologetic interpretations of the gospels from the 19th and 20th centuries.

Do you really think I care what an American pastor Reuben Archer Torrey think about?

Torrey has taken the gospels out-of-context. I see no rationality in accepting making some imaginary and mental contortions of claims about Mary’s father and genealogy, who blindly ignore sources that do exist.

The explanation provided by Torrey is perfectly acceptable. Joseph's father-in-law is named Heli, for in the Greek there is no 'son of'. The text actually reads 'Joseph of Heli' [Luke 3:24]. We are also informed of Joseph's father's name in Matthew; it being Jacob.

Once again, Josephus comes to our aid in providing some extraordinary information. In his autobiography he writes, 'l set down the genealogy of my family as l have found it described in the public records'.

Now, l hope this is sinking in! It means that genealogies were available in Jerusalem in the public records, probably up until the destruction of Jerusalem! Jews were especially careful about these genealogies because they were used in religious and civil life.

In 'Against Apion' [bk.i,2] Josephus makes the point even more forcefully. He says, 'For our forefathers did not only appoint the best of these priests, and those that attended upon the divine worship, for that design from the beginning, but made profession that the stock of the priests should continue unmixed and pure; for he who is partaker of the priesthood, must propagate of a wife of the same nation, without having any record to money, or any other dignities; but he is to make a scrutiny, and take his wife's genealogy from the ancient tables, and procure many witnesses to it; and this is our practice, not only in Judea, but wheresoever any body of men of our nation do live'.

Wow! This is amazing stuff, for which l thank the Lord!

Do you realise that your arguments have been blown out the water! Josephus here shows that the two genealogies must have been taken from the public records, and must have included the wife's genealogy. We know that Joseph was of the royal line of David, and Mary of David's son, Nathan.

The relationship between Mary and Elizabeth is one of 'relatives', and as the commentator Matthew Henry noted: “Though Elisabeth was, on the father’s side, of the daughters of Aaron (v. 5), yet on the mother’s side she might be of the house of David, for those two families often intermarried, as an earnest of the uniting of the royalty and the priesthood of the Messiah”.

Whatever Mary and Elizabeth's exact relationship, the truth must lie in the genealogies held by the Jews in their public records, and, as Josephus shows, these public records would have been available at the time the Gospels appeared.

 

[gnostic]

The explanation provided by Torrey is perfectly acceptable. Joseph's father-in-law is named Heli, for in the Greek there is no 'son of'. The text actually reads 'Joseph of Heli' [Luke 3:24]. We are also informed of Joseph's father's name in Matthew; it being Jacob.

Except no one and no sources from the 1st century to the 18th century ever claim or interpret Heli being Mary’s father.

Torrey is not only have no sources to back up his claim about Mary, it is utterly poor scholarship.

Did I tell you not so long ago, if you going to make claim about past writings, then you would need (A) supporting sources or (B) supporting evidence to back, or C, both, to verify your claim?

You relied your own claim on Torrey’s claims, but he has nothing more than his interpretations, which are not enough to support his claim.

What you don’t seem to under with genuine biblical scholarship, that you still need verifications to support any claim you make.

Torrey made his claims - his interpretations - but such interpretations cannot verify itself. Verifying one’s self, is a classic case of circular reasoning.

I had offered you alternative, Redemptionsong.

I had backed my own claim with actual source - the Gospel of James - where names of Mary were given as Joachim and Anne, both revered as saints from churches in the East (eg Eastern Orthodox, Syrian Church, Coptic Church, etc) and West (eg Roman Catholic Church, Lutheranism).

Sure, the Gospel of James is both non-canonical and apocryphal source, and sure, James the Just didn’t write this gospel, but the apostles Matthew and John didn’t write the respective canonical gospels, and the gospel of James is still a source.

Plus, the Gospel of James as well with other non-canonical apocryphal texts weren’t simply written without basis...meaning they are based on early church traditions that already existed.

As I said before when I talk about my experiences with the creation of my website - Timeless Myths - I gained experiences chasing sources, partly because I enjoy reading and researching myths, but a more practical purpose of scholarship, is to provide comprehensive understanding of the researched materials, and to verify whatever myths I was writing with sources.

What I did for Timeless Myths, would also apply to historical scholarship and even to biblical scholarship.

And I am just amazed that you continued to ignore the gospel of James.

Clearly I have wasted my time replying to you, because you are pretty determined to bury your head in the sand.