There might be no evidence that I'm controlling your mind, but that doesn't mean I'm not!
What's the difference?
The difference is that in the former case one could expect to see evidence, as I see it.
Surely it's a simple case of Matthew contradicting Mark, not Jairus contradicting himself?
no, I stay with my opinion, Jairus contradicted himself, not Bible in citing him.
But the bible contradicts itself in many little ways eg
Mark 6:8 He charged them to
take nothing for their journey
except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts;
Matthew 10: 9
Take no gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts, 10 no bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals,
nor a staff;
So, this is a case of Jesus changing his mind in a minor issue, I think.
And in big ways. Mark's Jesus is an ordinary Jew until God adopts him as [his] son on his baptism. He's not descended from David.
There is nothing you could use to back up this claim, I guess. And you didn't present any substanciation for the bolded claim.
The Jesuses of Matthew and Luke are the products of divine insemination and have God's Y-chromosome. They're each descended from David by genealogies which are as fake as each other and completely irreconcilable (and Jesus is not the son of Joseph in those stories anyway).
The Jesuses of Paul and John pre-existed in Heaven with God, created the material universe (regardless of
Genesis 1), and were born into Jewish families which are descended from David.
Th trouble is there are tons of contradictions in the bible. another contradiction is the ancestry of Jesus being different in different books. There´s no proof the bible is true.
I don't think the lineages as presented in Matthew and Luke are irreconcilable.
The one genealogy is focussed on real fathership, where as the other presented the biological lineage.
There are biological fathers that don't even meet their offspring, sadly.
Preexistence does not rule out incarnation.
I think the problem arises because of a Christian tradition that the bible must be read so as to tell a single unified story. Since it very clearly doesn't, since it very clearly is written in separate books at separate times and places by separate authors (sometimes more than one author per book) with separate purposes and separate agendas, the tradition of a unified story is untenable when you read the documents impartially.
The books were written in seperate times by seperate authors who had different intentions in their minds... Yet the Bible books do not contradict themselves, as I see it.