contradictions in the bible???

[rocketman]

No. If there is no biological father (or he is at the very least unknown), then the child has no tribe. If a non-Jewish man fathers a child with a Jewish woman, the child is Jewish, but is of no tribe.

A child is the son of his father. If there is no father, there is no tribe.

And there is your answer.

Tribes aside, Jesus is still a desendant of David and Jesse through Mary. There's the real answer as to whether or not we have a contradiction.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Tribes aside, Jesus is still a desendant of David and Jesse through Mary. There's the real answer as to whether or not we have a contradiction.

There's no such thing as "tribes aside". To be reckoned as a descendant from a particular person goes through a strictly patriarchal line. You are the son of your father, who is the son of his father, who is the son of his father, etc.

Mary's family has absolutely nothing to do with it.


If you can't trace your line back through your father... you can't trace your line back. It's that simple.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Plus... even if we toss reality aside and presume that Mary's line does count... it is said that she goes through Nathan instead of Solomon. This automatically disqualifies her from being part of a messianic heritage.

 

[rocketman]

Good answers Poisonshady313, but I disagree. I think it's enough for the moshiach to be a genetic descendant of David.

I've always been very respectful of my Jewish friends and their beliefs so please don't get me wrong, however, I've never bought into the whole Nathan/Solomon thing quite frankly. It's David whom God was concerned about. This subject can quickly snowball into an epic event and I'm not after a long-winded debate so I found a link to some reasoning that (loosely) approximates what I think, if anyone is interested. If someone wants to post a counter link be my guest.

 

[rojse]

I honestly do not pretend to know enough about laws at that time, but none of this discussion reconciles my first post on the subject.

Matthew 1:6-16 says that Jesus was of the twenty-eighth generation of David, while Luke 3:21-31 says forty-two generations. Even though I honestly do not understand why we have somehow managed to reconcile Jesus being descended from David without a biological father, how come there is a difference of fourteen generations between the two? I'm not letting go of this point that easily.

 

[rocketman]

I honestly do not pretend to know enough about laws at that time, but none of this discussion reconciles my first post on the subject.

Matthew 1:6-16 says that Jesus was of the twenty-eighth generation of David, while Luke 3:21-31 says forty-two generations. Even though I honestly do not understand why we have somehow managed to reconcile Jesus being descended from David without a biological father, how come there is a difference of fourteen generations between the two? I'm not letting go of this point that easily.

Good question. Many scholars consider Luke's account to be the genealogy of Mary, and Matthew's account that of Joseph, after all, the two accounts share almost no names. Others add that Luke may have included levirite marriages, although by itself it's unlikely that this would account for the difference. Both ideas are debatable but put the two together and you have one possible explanation.

 

[crystalonyx]

Good question. Many scholars consider Luke's account to be the genealogy of Mary, and Matthew's account that of Joseph, after all, the two accounts share almost no names. Others add that Luke may have included levirite marriages, although by itself it's unlikely that this would account for the difference. Both ideas are debatable but put the two together and you have one possible explanation.

Much more likley is that neither Mary nor Joseph existed, and these "lineages" are totally made up.

 

[rocketman]

Much more likley is that neither Mary nor Joseph existed, and these "lineages" are totally made up.

The purpose of this thread is to test if they contradict each other. What's your view on them in this regard and why?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Good answers Poisonshady313, but I disagree. I think it's enough for the moshiach to be a genetic descendant of David.

I've always been very respectful of my Jewish friends and their beliefs so please don't get me wrong, however, I've never bought into the whole Nathan/Solomon thing quite frankly. It's David whom God was concerned about. This subject can quickly snowball into an epic event and I'm not after a long-winded debate so I found a link to some reasoning that (loosely) approximates what I think, if anyone is interested. If someone wants to post a counter link be my guest.

The tribe that was given to Solomon's son, for David's sake, was the tribe of Judah, the tribe the Messiah must come from.

Consider also this promise to David:

I shall raise up after you your offspring who will issue from your loins, and I shall make his kingdom firm. He shall build a Temple for My sake, and I shall make firm the throne of his kingdom forever. I shall be a Father unto him and he shall be a son unto Me, so that when he sins I will chastise him with the rod of men and with afflictions of human beings. But My kindness will not be removed from him as I removed it from Saul, whom I removed before you. Your dynasty and your kingdom will remain steadfast before you for all time; your throne will remain firm forever.


II Samuel 7:12-16


This pretty much locks in Solomon as the guy.

footnote for 7:14 (I shall be a Father...)
I will chastise him as a father would a son, but not too severely, never abandoning My affection for him and never abrogating My promise concerning the permanence of your dynasty.

Whatever wrong Solomon was guilty of, it wasn't enough to rip away the Messianic lineage from him... because for his father's sake, his son was given Judah, the tribe of the Messiah.

Israel as a whole was also given conditional promises to remain God's people.... or were they? Consider the long list of curses in Leviticus for disobedience.... and then consider this verse:

Leviticus 26
43. ...This was all in retribution for their having despised My ordinances and in retribution for their having rejected My statutes. 44. But despite all this, while they are in the land of their enemies, I will not despise them nor will I reject them to annihilate them, thereby breaking My covenant that is with them, for I am the Lord their God.

45. I will remember for them the covenant [made with] the ancestors, whom I took out from the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations, to be a God to them. I am the Lord.




Despite whatever conditions God set for Solomon, the merit of David prevented Solomon from losing his eternal kingdom, which will materialize again in Solomon's descendant, the Messiah.

 

[Autodidact]

Tribes aside, Jesus is still a desendant of David and Jesse through Mary. There's the real answer as to whether or not we have a contradiction.

No. He's not of the House of David, regardless of who his mom is.

 

[Autodidact]

Good question. Many scholars consider Luke's account to be the genealogy of Mary, and Matthew's account that of Joseph, after all, the two accounts share almost no names. Others add that Luke may have included levirite marriages, although by itself it's unlikely that this would account for the difference. Both ideas are debatable but put the two together and you have one possible explanation.

Yes, one way to explain away an utter contradiction is to assert that one of the conflicting passages means something completely different than what it says. Using this method, A and not A may be said not to be contradictory. Of course, using that method, I say that the entire New Testament is actually an organic cookbook, with just as much credibility.

These so-called "scholars" who assert this so-called "argument," might they be Christians trying to figure out some way, however ridiculous, to reconcile these two obviously contradictory passages?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Looks like those gospel writers got a little too fancy for their own good. You can have House of David, or you can have virgin birth, but you can't have both.

Unless God Himself is a descendant of David! Maybe God is like the Terminator: He's from the future and goes back in time to change the past!

Tribes aside, Jesus is still a desendant of David and Jesse through Mary. There's the real answer as to whether or not we have a contradiction.

No, the answer to the question of whether we have a contradiction is in the name of Joseph's father.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, one way to explain away an utter contradiction is to assert that one of the conflicting passages means something completely different than what it says. Using this method, A and not A may be said not to be contradictory. Of course, using that method, I say that the entire New Testament is actually an organic cookbook, with just as much credibility.

I now have an image in my head of someone running through a church yelling "it's a cookbook!!" a la the "To Serve Man" episode of The Twilight Zone.

 

[rocketman]

No, the answer to the question of whether we have a contradiction is in the name of Joseph's father.

Ok, so you think both genealogies refer to Joseph's line.

 

[gnostic]

Ok, so you think both genealogies refer to Joseph's line.

Which is not really impossible...unless one of them is wrong or that they are both wrong.

If one must follow a patriarchal line from David to Joseph to its logical conclusion, then there really should only be just one line. Instead we have 2 gospels contradict each other after David:

• one line is longer than the other,
• and the names don't precisely match.

How can one say which genealogy is right and the true line of Jesus? You can't.

I personally think the lines were fabricated by the gospel authors, to exalt Jesus' line.

Not only that. The 2 gospels differ about Jesus' birth. Luke make no mentions of:-

• The visit of the 3 magi from the East.
• Herod ordering the slaughter of children.
• And Joseph taking Mary and Jesus to Egypt.

You would think that something as dramatic as what Matthew had recorded would be found in Luke's gospel. Herod is only mention once in Luke (I mean Herod the Great).

 

[rocketman]

If one must follow a patriarchal line from David to Joseph to its logical conclusion, then there really should only be just one line. Instead we have 2 gospels contradict each other after David:

• one line is longer than the other,
• and the names don't precisely match.

How can one say which genealogy is right and the true line of Jesus? You can't.


You would think that something as dramatic as what Matthew had recorded would be found in Luke's gospel. Herod is only mention once in Luke (I mean Herod the Great).

Luke's audience didn't need a Jewish patriarchal line. You are making a strong case as to why they may in fact be two seperate lines, one from Mary and one from Joseph. A quick check of the Greek for Luke 3:23 shows the word "Nomizo" which means to hold or follow by custom or usage, or to deem or suppose. And the word 'son' does not exist at all prior to Heli(Eli) in the Greek. A straight reading would be more like: "When Jesus began His ministry he was about thirty years of age. He was the Son, (as was thought[nozimo], of Joseph of Eli), the son of Matthat.." For clarity I added paranthesis to the bit that 'skips' Joseph. So although Mary is not mentioned in order to comply with paternal custom so prevalent amongst men back then she is clearly implied, because no Father is given and by this point in Luke we already know of her. (Other scholars say that Eli was legally Joseph's father because he was his Father in law, but still Mary's biological Father.)

Essentially I have paraphrased a much more complex explanation used by many scholars (both secular and religious) who accept that we are dealing with two different but complementary genealogies. It is widely accepted by almost all scholars that Luke and Matthew are writing for two very different audiences which explains this and many other differences between the two.

I don't know if they are meant to be seperate lines or not but my mind is open; certainly there is enough evidence to cast doubt on any claims of a contradiction. The Jewish people were very particular about their genealogies for legal and other reasons and we should not be so quick to dismiss these records lightly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, so you think both genealogies refer to Joseph's line.

Don't you?

Matthew 1:16:
and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:13:
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Edit: I see your response to gnostic. So "son" means either "son" or "son-in-law"? Is there anyone here who knows if the two words are actually the same in the original language?

 

[rocketman]

Don't you?

I honestly don't have a fixed view, and therefore I'm not prepared to call it a contradiction.

Edit: I see your response to gnostic. So "son" means either "son" or "son-in-law"? Is there anyone here who knows if the two words are actually the same in the original language?

As I said in my last post: "the word 'son' does not exist at all prior to Heli(Eli) in the Greek".... It actually calls him 'Joseph of Eli'. Between this and certain traditions there is a lot of room for interpretation.

 

[gnostic]

Well, I had this sort of argument before, and I am not impress. I had similar arguments with Christians about Jesus' siblings and Mary's perpetual virgin, and I am not impressed with that too.

It's not an argument, it's simply how some Jews did things back in the day. Impressed or not it is a straightforward explanation. And I don't need to know what else impresses you or otherwise, thanks.

What I mean by being "not impress" is that I don't find them (not you or themselves personally, but their arguments, perspectives, interpretations or logics) to be "unconvincing".

Luke's audience didn't need a Jewish patriarchal line.

And this argument is also not convincing.

I know what you mean that Luke's audience are more than likely not Jewish, and hence don't need to know this, however both Matthew and Luke both provide different genealogy in regarding to Joseph's ancestors, not Mary's, and both have slightly different account about the conception/birth of Jesus.

Do you Luke's audience don't need to know about them fleeing to Egypt during and after the massacre of the boys in Bethlehem?

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli....

When Jesus began his work, he was about 30 years old. He was the son, so people thought, of Joseph, who was the son of Heli....

:sorry1: ...but I don't see son-in-law of Heli or otherwise here.

And Luke speak of nothing about Heli or Eli being father of Mary. So if you can provide the source that say otherwise (like Mary being a daughter of Heli), then your argument is only unsupported interpretation. Hence I am not impressed (or not convinced).

 

[rocketman]

What I mean by being "not impress" is that I don't find them (not you or themselves personally, but their arguments, perspectives, interpretations or logics) to be "unconvincing".

No worries mate.

Do you Luke's audience don't need to know about them fleeing to Egypt during and after the massacre of the boys in Bethlehem?

I honestly don't know for sure if that would have helped his cause. Do you know for sure? You seem to accept that he had a different audience, perhaps we need to know a bit more about them in order to answer your question, which is a good one, but not of itself demonstrating contradiction.

:sorry1: ...but I don't see son-in-law of Heli or otherwise here.
And Luke speak of nothing about Heli or Eli being father of Mary. So if you can provide the source that say otherwise (like Mary being a daughter of Heli), then your argument is only unsupported interpretation. Hence I am not impressed (or not convinced).

Ok, but if you read the Greek you won't see 'son' either, but you will see it for the rest of the blokes mentioned thereafter. And that raises a question mark don't you think? Looking back at tradition, such as 1 Ch 2:34-41 and Ezr 2:61 we see precedent that Jewish men could take the wife's family name. If Joseph did this then the title 'Joseph of Eli' makes more sense than 'Joseph son of Eli'. Numbers 27:8 lets brotherless women inherit their Father's heritage, but in verse 4 is a clear reference that the intent was for the family name to carry on too.

As for other sources I've noticed some refer to the Talmud (Chagigah 77:4) to point out that there is a Miriam(Mary) who had a Father named Eli, but I have some reservations about that one.

As I say, I don't have a hard and fast opinion on the 'two genealogies', but I'm yet to see anyone show for sure that they really do contradict each other.