Your argument here only works if we have both Luke and Matthew. If they were purposely created in order to compliment each other. That's not the case. Matthew and Luke were written for different audiences. More so, they weren't always agreed upon. Some early canons had one or the other, or even left both out. Your argument doesn't stand.
More so, they do explicitly state that Jesus was the son of Joseph. Luke 3:23, states Jesus was the son of Joseph, and tells us without doubt that the genealogy traces back through Joseph. In Matthew 1:16, we are told that the genealogy goes through Joseph, as in, we are told that Jacob is the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born. Both state with out a doubt that they go through Joseph.
So yes, both point to Joseph, as both specifically state that the line is going through Joseph.
The genealogies are also that of Joseph, as both specifically state, in no uncertain terms, that they go through Joseph. It is through Joseph that both of the genealogies argue that Jesus was a descendant of King David.
As for the levarite marriage, where is the evidence? There is none. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that there was a levarite marriage. There is no suggestion that Joseph died, and Mary was remarried. That doesn't even make sense in the story as the two were just engaged at the time of the conception. There was no time or evidence for a levarite marriage.
Not to mention that it wouldn't change the genealogy. If I married my brothers wife, the genealogy through the male line would be exactly the same. If my grandfather had married his brothers wife, the genealogy would have been the same through the male line. So it wouldn't explain the discrepancies in the genealogies.
Only if you read Luke. You are ignoring Matthew. It is in Matthew where the Magi are talked about (Luke doesn't mention them).
In Luke, it is because of a decree that the family goes from their home in Nazareth, to Bethlehem, to register for a census (a census that did not occur. We know that because there is no record of a census at that time. Not to mention that there was never a law or order that required people to go to their ancestral homes for a census. It makes no sense, as you would pay taxes in the place you lived, not the place that one of your ancestors lived. More so, Palestine would not have been subject to the census, as they were not under direct Roman rule). After the birth, they return home to Nazareth.
In Matthew, there is no census mentioned, no travel mentioned. Instead, the family already lives in Bethlehem. They don't move to Nazareth until quite some time after the birth of Jesus, and only after they come back from Egypt (as in, they live in Egypt for a couple of years, and then relocated to Nazareth after the fact).
You're combining the two Gospels instead of looking at them separately.
We have at least one historian, Josephus, who writes about the history of Palestine. He wrote about King Herod, as well as his death, and the atrocities he committed. There is no mention of the supposed massacre.
John and Mark, as well as Paul, never mention the massacre of infants by Herod either. Neither does Luke. So what you have is one source, Matthew, and only Matthew, that talks about this supposed historical event, while everyone else ignores it. Not to mention, Luke's account directly contradicts it. If it happened, why didn't Luke mention it, or even seem aware of it?
No. That's not the issue though. I don't have to works about my life stating that my family lived in one town when I was born, while another source contradicts it and says my family lived somewhere else.
The problem here is that you didn't address what I said, and instead are trying to distract from that with meaningless questions.
Then show me. Instead of making a condescending statement, and refusing to address the issues, show me where I'm wrong. Clear up the contradictions instead of ignoring them.
There is a lost letter to the Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 5:9 Paul speaks of having written the congregation before. Colossians 4:16 talks of a letter to the church in Laodicea. In 2 Corinthians 2:3-9, a tearful letter is also mentioned, which would have come after 1 Corinthians. That's three letters we no longer have. There are probably more, as Paul was operating for quite some time.
And what makes me think that we don't have those copies? Because no one has found them. Those 25,000 NT manuscripts have been looked over by scholars, and those letters were not among them. They also aren't in the NT canon, so there's that as well. Obviously, Paul didn't think he was writing scripture, nor did his followers.
I don't think either one is "right." I think it is what people decided on. It wasn't inspired. It was something debated for more than a thousand years, and only finally came down to two different ones. Or actually, dozens of different ones, because we also have Orthodox canons, from different Orthodox churches. There is the Latter Day Saints canon. Yeah, so there is still quite a few canons out there, which again, suggests that there was no definitive guide as to which books were meant to be included.
As for discrepancies.
1) 1 Timothy 3:16. It says, "G-d made manifest in the flesh." The earliest manuscripts state, "who was made manifest in the flesh." The difference is quite considerable, as it changes the meaning to imply that Jesus is G-d. The earlier text did not call Jesus G-d.
2) Luke 24:51-53. Some later manuscripts state that "he was removed from them." Earlier texts have an addition. After stating that Jesus was removed from them, it adds, "and he was taken up into heaven." It's a significant addition.
3) Possibly the most famous discrepancy in the NT. Where does Mark end? Some manuscripts have it cut off at 16:8. Others include an addition to 16:8, which sometimes ends with Amen. Or others include verses 9-19.
You're dead wrong here. First, it is not always a group. There have been a number of translations done by just one person. Many of the earlier translations were in fact done by one person. Even today, there are translations done by one person, or at least translations of various books done by one person.
And you didn't address the fact that some of the Hebrew words (especially) don't have a direct translation. We don't know what some of the words mean. For instance, Deuteronomy 33:2, the note that goes along with it is that the Hebrew is uncertain. That happens dozens of times throughout the Old Testament. In fact, I found that one by randomly opening up my Bible.
The two variations you gave are new variations. Compare the KJV to the NRSV. There are far greater differences. Compare the Latin Vulgate to the NRSV. Even more differences.
Translations change for a variety of reasons. Yes, we lares more about the languages, and partially to make them easier to understand. But also because we discover new manuscripts. After the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, and translated, translations changed. Better manuscripts. We no longer rely on the Textus Receptus, as the KJV did. Since 1870, we've found much better manuscripts, and thus the translations have changed.
You are assuming wrong again. You have no idea how old I am, because me being in college means absolutely nothing in regards to my age. My education with the Bible began when I was 8. My pastor, who took me under his wing, used sources from Fuller Theological school. One that did believe that the Bible was the inerrant word of G-d. I was ordained at 18 after going through the course work. So I have that literal teaching of the Bible. I have since rejected it, because I don't think it gives a meaningful understanding of the Bible. I believe it requires one to bury their heads in the sand.
I have sense attended Concordia College, where the majority of my course work has been finished. I've also taken course from Loyola University, and will be returning full-time soon.
I've also taken other courses from a number of schools, because I love learning. As for commentaries, I bought the library of a Lutheran minister, that contained nearly 1,000 books. Many of them commentaries. In addition to that, I have dozens of commentaries myself. And I know the languages. So please don't try to have some sort of meaningless contest here. Instead of comparing rulers, why not show why I'm wrong.
As I showed above, you didn't deal with them. You side stepped them.
I didn't say they were the most. However, the Galatians provided a huge portion of his ministry. It was an example.
If you read the epistles of Paul, they are filled with him having to defend his positions. He's defending his position, and answering new questions.
You are assuming. You are taking one belief, and assuming it means something more. Yes, I don't think the Bible is the inerrant word of G-d. It contradicts itself, so I can't see how it could be. That is a common position within Christianity.
It says nothing about being inspired.
I never answer post that long. I will only address your last remark. Most of Paul's writings are not about defending his positions. The great majority is teaching the basics of Christianity, from which conservative Christianity gets many of its basic doctrines.
With all of you books, commentaries and study, you should know that God told Paul that ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired by Him. Evidently with all of your wisdom, you have determined that is not true. So why should I believe you, instead of Paul.
How do you determine which verses Are true and which are not?
If we continue this discussion,I will frequently show where you are wrong and I will use God's inspired and inerrant word to do it.
