James Humphreys
Member
I think that rather than pointing to Joseph as the father of Jesus, the gospel stories are giving hints that Zacharias was his father.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Good point, although some tales are relevant to History (for instance there was a "Great Flood" at some point in the same Region of proclaimed Noah's Ark. I think one point that is being discounted as well is the evolution and tribal DNA mingling that has been happening for millions of Years. All of the "Tribes" mentioned in Ancient Texts are now mixed or no longer exist. The only lingering effect of such things are beliefs of some or tangible fact (rarely, but at times one in the same).since when???
Most scholars? I could find hardly any. The Lapis Tiburtinus is a fragment celebrating an unknown individual, and speculation that it refers to Quirinius is just that - speculation leavened by special pleading.It is you that is speculating. Both Matthew and Luke's accounts are correct. The gospels were written just decades after the events occurred by careful historians. Luke 2:1,2 records: "Now in those days a decree went forth from Caesar Au·gus′tus for all the inhabited earth to be registered; (this first registration took place when Qui·rin′i·us was governor of Syria." You are basing your claim that Herod's death preceded Quirinius appointment on unproven speculation.
According to the Bible Encyclopaedia Insight on the Scriptures,Vol 2, p.722:
"For a long time this was the only governorship of Syria by Quirinius for which secular history supplied confirmation. However, in the year 1764 an inscription known as the Lapis Tiburtinus was found in Rome, which, though not giving the name, contains information that most scholars acknowledge could apply only to Quirinius.
Most scholars? I could find hardly any. The Lapis Tiburtinus is a fragment celebrating an unknown individual, and speculation that it refers to Quirinius is just that - speculation leavened by special pleading.
Despite your wishful thinking, the scholarly consensus on Herod's death-date remains 4 BCE. Your own chosen source Josephus links it to a known eclipse of the moon in March of that year.
I think that rather than pointing to Joseph as the father of Jesus, the gospel stories are giving hints that Zacharias was his father.
Exactly! However, this is one of those points of difficulty that best be declared irrelevant and swept under the rug.You realize that Jesus not having blood from King David's bloodline through a father invalidates him being the messiah, right? Someone, somewhere, is lying.
Not that this is at all meaningful---the bloodline could only be passed down through males---but where do you find evidence of such a genealogy?Pegg said:And Mary's family were also related by blood to the house of king David....so Jesus is heir to the throne through his mothers blood.
Which version of the Bible, and where in it is this "SAID"? It's certainly implied, of course, but I find no instance in which a Bible SAYS "Joseph was Jesus adoptive father." Or are you just using poetic license here?rusra02 said:The Bible SAYS that Joseph was Jesus adoptive father. It hints at nothing concerning Zacharias.
There you go again, with your "credible historians" that seems to know all.
Not that this is at all meaningful---the bloodline could only be passed down through males---but where do you find evidence of such a genealogy?
Which version of the Bible, and where in it is this "SAID"? It's certainly implied, of course, but I find no instance in which a Bible SAYS "Joseph was Jesus adoptive father." Or are you just using poetic license here?
only according to jewish tradition....traditional ideas created by men, not God.
Jesus told them "you make the word of God invalid because of your traditions"
This is just one example of how they invalidate the bloodline of the Messiah. The genetic information from women is irrelevant according to Jewish tradition....yet God uses 50% of the genetic information from the woman to create a male child.
Why do men think the womans bloodline is irrelevant?
Maybe because Mary´s genes were quite and submissive, and it was the woman who was deceived, and not the man.
you are trying to be funny here, yes?
I entertained myself