The argument is not about being a literal "son" of David, but about claiming to have David as an ancestor. Mark's Jesus says he doesn't, the other Jesuses say they do.no, even if we believe you that Jesus denies to be the son of David, this does not necessarily mean that he also denies being from his seed.
It's your interpretation that produces contradictions. Nothing less, nothing more.
The question is not whether Mary is mentioned in a genealogy but whether descent is traced through her. Matthew's genealogy (Matthew 1:1-17) says that Joseph the husband of Mary was descended from David by an entirely male descent, and Matthew also says that Joseph was not the father of Jesus. Luke (3:23-38) traces Jesus' descent from David once again entirely through the male line, once again ending with Joseph, and once again saying that Joseph is not the father of Jesus.asking questions does not suffice. The onus is on you to prove there is a contradiction when you claim one.
And of course the two genealogies are entirely irreconcilable, a whole skein of biblical contradictions.
But you don't read your gospels with a dispassionate eye ─ you not only want them to agree, you demand that they do, regardless of what they say.No gospel does rule that out, in my opinion.
Jesus is not a God. All five versions of him expressly deny they're God and none of them ever claims to be God. Jesus is not made a God till the invention of the Trinity doctrine in the fourth century CE. If there was an historical Jesus, he'd never heard of the Trinity doctrine because it didn't exist; and if you take the gospels seriously then it still can't exist because it directly contradicts Jesus' numerous statements that he's not God,The passage that you presented was about Jesus being or not being the son of David - regardless of the answer... a powerful God can incarnate.
It does in all the cases I've cited. Answer me this:When five authors say different things, this does not show your point that different means contradictory.
Did Jesus pre-exist in heaven? Mark, Matthew and Luke say no, Paul and John say yes,
Was Jesus born of a virgin by divine insemination? Matthew and Luke say yes, Mark says no, Paul and John imply no since their Jesuses were descended from David, necessarily on the male side.
Mark is the first gospel written, and John the Baptist there preaches "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1:4) and Jesus "was baptized by John" (1:9) and immediately afterwards the heavens open and God adopts Jesus as his son on the model of Psalm 2:7, affirmed in Acts 13:33. He repents his sins and God embraces him, in effect. An ordinary Jew elevated after his baptism,No gospel author said Jesus needed baptism for himself.
It would be nice if you now and then based your opinion on what the text actually says. But as you've frankly disclosed, you're an apologist.He wanted to give a sign, in my opinion.
Talk me through it. How can an incoherent proposition ─ admitted to be just that ─ be true? What exactly is it that's true?I disagree here.
Are you saying they didn't make it up? That threAccording to you they made it up.
There was no"tax census". History is clear on the point. There was no "massacre of the innocents". History is clear on the point. The only plausible explanations for (in this case) Matthew's fictions is that he was maneuvering his story to make it appear Jesus was "fulfilling prophecy".Matthew had motives. That does not make his gospel wrong. He did not invent anything, as I see it.
Goodness, don't you even read your bible? Only in Matthew 21:7 does Jesus look like a fool for sitting astride a colt and a donkey. In Mark 11:7 and Luke 19:35 he rides just a colt. Which of course is yet another contradiction.For instance, he can ride a foal and, afterwards, on a donkey or whatever he wants to ride.