Bible Questions?

My position is sitting down.

As to the tests I used to prove the Bible is God's Word, give it a rest.

The simple truth is I'll probably start a whole new thread about it but I just don't feel like it right now.

 

Who is Josephs father?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 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.

Why does the bible contain so many contradictions if it is the word of god?

Didn't anyone cross reference there work?

 

So what else is new?

In ancient times 2-3000 years ago there have been reports of people living past 100 years old but that seems to be about the upper limit a few years one way or another. For people today that still seems to be about the upper limit, although today a lot more people are living closer to that upper limit.

 

You can source this, right?

 

This is more a contradiction, than a Bible question and has been answered in that thread.

But anyway; Matthew, a tax collector probably more interested in legal matters, traced the ancestry of Joesph the adoptive father of Jesus, from who Jesus inherited the legal right to rule and Luke, a physician and probably more interested in the physical ancestry of Jesus, traced the ancestry of Jesus through his mother Mary also a descendant of David but not of the royal line. As for why the name Joesph was used by Luke instead of Mary, sometimes the the husband's name as head of the family is used to represent both husband and wife.

 

Yes.

 

ok..........?

 

Har, Har

Give it a rest? the point seems to be crucial to your entire line of argument.

Fine. Hope this isn't just another dodge.

 

Okay, if that's what you want to believe.

 

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 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.

So who was correct and who was incorrect?

Are you saying that Heli was more of a family name or what?

 

Let your fingers do the walking, in other words look it up for yourself, I did.

 

What I'm saying is Matthew and Luke are two different ancestries Matthew's is Joesph's, Luke's is Mary's, if you'll notice they are different back to David where after that they are the same.

 

Lol, are you serious?
You introduce "facts" into a discussion, and then when prompted to provide evidence of their validity, you tell me to "look it up for myself?"

I'm just going to go ahead and take this as an admission that you were throwing wild claims out there and can't back them up.

 

LUK 3:23 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.

Your saying this passage refers to Mary's bloodline and not Josephs?

It seems to me that Luke is referring to Josephs parents...

 

I think we need Maury Povich...

 

Yeah, he'll never admit it, but it sure looks lame. People who are secure in their knowledge don't need to resort to so many evasive maneuvers.

 

I think the point of both versions seems to be to establish that Jesus had links to the House of David, and is thus a fulfillment of prophecy.
Matthew's genealogy portrays David's line descending through his son Solomon down to Joseph. Luke's genealogy portrays David's line descending through his son Nathan down to Joseph. According to one theologian, Dr. William Smith: "They are both the genealogies of Joseph...Mary, the mother of Jesus was in all probablility the daughter of Jacob, and cousin to Joseph, her husband... Mary's name was omitted because 'ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link."
The "all probability" part can be challenged, but it seems like a plausible (or at least possible) explanation. And don't start with the incest again. It would be legal in Vermont.

 

It may seem that way but why would Luke refer to Matthew's account rather than his own?

 

The reason for the two ancestries is that God said that no descendant of the royal line of Solomon's line would ever sit on the throne of David again but through adoption Jesus inherited that right. Also seeing as his mother was also was a descendant of David though Nathan of the non-royal line Jesus was also a natural descendant of David.

 

So who was right?