[_ Old Earth _] The Brain

[Blazin Bones]

Clearly I meant to say more personal. Matthew and Luke wrote from different perspectives.

 

[Asimov]

Clearly I meant to say more personal. Matthew and Luke wrote from different perspectives.

That's not what I was laughin about Brutus....you "infer" that he was writing from different perspectives, but you have nothing to base it on.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Do you have any evidence to counter such a perspective?

 

[Barbarian]

But if the truth is all a matter of personal perspective, how "inerrant" can the Bible be?

I have no problem with the idea that these geneologies were figurative, and meant to do something other than present a real geneology.

But then that seems to rule out literalism as an absolute for Scripture.

 

[Asimov]

Do you have any evidence to counter such a perspective?

You need to provide some evidence for your perspective, before it can be analyzed. Why would you say one is a legal genealogy, and one is personal....obviously this would require some historical, and scriptural evidence.

 

[Free]

You need to provide some evidence for your perspective, before it can be analyzed.

Actually, no. The argument was first provided by someone who doesn't take a literal view of at least some of the Bible. Therefore, the onus would be on like-minded persons to provide evidence that shows the two accounts to be contradictory.

However, you can analyze this:

Matthew provides Jesus' genealogy through Joseph, a decendent of King David. Jesus was Joseph's legal air as an adopted son. Luke provides Jesus' genealogy through Mary whose descent was through Nathan, a son of Bathsheba, the wife of King David.

There is no contradiction. End of story.

 

[reznwerks]

not again

[

However, you can analyze this:

Matthew provides Jesus' genealogy through Joseph, a decendent of King David. Jesus was Joseph's legal air as an adopted son. Luke provides Jesus' genealogy through Mary whose descent was through Nathan, a son of Bathsheba, the wife of King David.

There is no contradiction. End of story.

It's not the end of the story. Adoption is not "seed". That is the end of the story. There is no descent in the bible that leads from Mary to King David.If the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary and not Joseph, then why does it list Joseph in the line rather than Mary? Why is no other genealogy of a woman recorded anywhere else in scripture? And if this is Mary's genealogy, then Jesus descended through Nathan, not Solomon, making the prophecies in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 and 1 Chronicles 22:10 false.

If, using the genealogy in Luke, Jesus's claim to descent from David, of the tribe of Judah, is through Mary rather than Joseph then how can it be that Mary's cousin, Elizabeth, was descended from the house of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi (Luke 1:5)?
The bottom line is that Christian can delude themselves into thinking that all is well but all anyone has to do is read it and think for themselves. Hiding in a closet and telling yourself all is well is not going to solve the big problems it has with legitamacy.

 

[Barbarian]

It's true. There is no indication whatever that one geneology is of Joseph and one of Mary. In fact, it says otherwise.

They can't both be literally true.