contradictions in the bible???

[rojse]

The most striking contradiction in the bible was that where two of the Gospels said that Jesus' father was of the line of David. This is extremely important, because Jesus had to be descended from David.

Matthew 1:6-16 says that Jesus was of the twenty-eighth generation of David, while Luke 3:21-31 says forty-two generations. Both say this is through the father.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, if Mary had Jesus as a virgin, how can we even include Joseph when trying to work out if Jesus descended from the line of David or not? Shouldn't Mary only be considered when trying to work out the ascendants of Jesus?

One of them said that he was of the forty-second generation, another said the twentieth. Even should this be ignored, Jesus cannot be considered of the line of David because Jesus was born of a virgin, so only his mother's relationship to

 

[logician]

The most striking contradiction in the bible was that where two of the Gospels said that Jesus' father was of the line of David. This is extremely important, because Jesus had to be descended from David.

Matthew 1:6-16 says that Jesus was of the twenty-eighth generation of David, while Luke 3:21-31 says forty-two generations. Both say this is through the father.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, if Mary had Jesus as a virgin, how can we even include Joseph when trying to work out if Jesus descended from the line of David or not? Shouldn't Mary only be considered when trying to work out the ascendants of Jesus?

One of them said that he was of the forty-second generation, another said the twentieth. Even should this be ignored, Jesus cannot be considered of the line of David because Jesus was born of a virgin, so only his mother's relationship to

One of the many contradictions in the gospels:

Matthew (ch. 1) and Luke (ch. 3) both list lineages for jesus back to King David, in an attempt to show jesus fulfilled the prophecy that the messiah would come from the house of David.
BUT...Matthew has him coming through Solomon (son of David) after 27 generations, Luke through Nathran (son of David) after 37 generations. The two lineages are almost completely different. Which one is right and which is wrong? They can't BOTH be right...

 

[rojse]

One of the many contradictions in the gospels:

Matthew (ch. 1) and Luke (ch. 3) both list lineages for jesus back to King David, in an attempt to show jesus fulfilled the prophecy that the messiah would come from the house of David.
BUT...Matthew has him coming through Solomon (son of David) after 27 generations, Luke through Nathran (son of David) after 37 generations. The two lineages are almost completely different. Which one is right and which is wrong? They can't BOTH be right...

But even if we had the mental fortitude to reconcile this internally, we still have to fix up the fact that both have Jesus descending from David through Joseph, when he was born from a virgin woman...

 

[Vasilisa Jade]

There are quite a number of contradictions between the gospels, certainly enough to entertain the notion they are works of fiction.

I KNOW!! I was just thinking the whole time.... "Now come on. Am I really hearing this from such an intelligent individual? I've heard of blind faith in silly notions but this is just flat out denial..."

Then I thought about this thread. I was like... wow. There are people on this forum that are just... so so intelligent. Some of you guys have probably studied hebrew and aramaic, then translated the material for yourselves. I wouldn't be suprised in the least, and this thread has been devoted to the seemingly ENDLESS amounts of contradictions and... (whatever the word for words with multiple meanings/translations is --can't think now! I'm ranting!) for how long!!! I was like... geeeeezzz....

Sometimes I want him to come here and play just so I can watch him sweat. I know that's mean, but, daggnabit he irritates the mess outa me with his hubris and arrogance.

 

[gnostic]

What!? 3 heavens? i think there is a translation issue going on with the heavens meaning the sky and heaven meaning actual heaven. you have to remember that a lot of the little translations from hebrew to greek to english have affected the way we can read the bible today... how can we be sure that those who translated it were right?

Er...No. It's not a mistranslation.

The pre-Christian book of Enoch, especially 2 Enoch, speak of more than 1 heaven. 7 heavens to be more precise. I am not surprise at all about Paul writing of there being 3 heavens.

Christian gospel/epistle authors adopted many things from the Enochic literature, such as the war in heaven between good and evil, hierarchy among angels (seraphs, cherubs, archangels, etc), the Christian hell, etc.

 

[McBell]

Er...No. It's not a mistranslation.

The pre-Christian book of Enoch, especially 2 Enoch, speak of more than 1 heaven. 7 heavens to be more precise. I am not surprise at all about Paul writing of there being 3 heavens.

Christian gospel/epistle authors adopted many things from the Enochic literature, such as the war in heaven between good and evil, hierarchy among angels (seraphs, cherubs, archangels, etc), the Christian hell, etc.

it kinda makes sense if there are seven levels of hell that there are seven levels of heaven....

 

[gnostic]

Now, correct me if I am wrong, if Mary had Jesus as a virgin, how can we even include Joseph when trying to work out if Jesus descended from the line of David or not? Shouldn't Mary only be considered when trying to work out the ascendants of Jesus?

I have pointed out, exactly the same thing in the past, but you will always get Christian illogic answers, why this David-Joseph-Jesus link is true.

 

[rocketman]

I have pointed out, exactly the same thing in the past, but you will always get Christian illogic answers, why this David-Joseph-Jesus link is true.

It would not have been inconsistent with the practices of the time for Jesus to have been accepted as an adopted son into the 'House' of David. Biological descent was not always the only factor at work. Legal necessity drove this approach, but it also fits in with the needs of the gospel writers.

 

[gnostic]

It would not have been inconsistent with the practices of the time for Jesus to have been accepted as an adopted son into the 'House' of David. Biological descent was not always the only factor at work. Legal necessity drove this approach, but it also fits in with the needs of the gospel writers.

Well, I had this sort of argument before, and I am not impress. I had similar arguments with Christians about Jesus' siblings and Mary's perpetual virgin, and I am not impressed with that too.

 

[rocketman]

Well, I had this sort of argument before, and I am not impress. I had similar arguments with Christians about Jesus' siblings and Mary's perpetual virgin, and I am not impressed with that too.

It's not an argument, it's simply how some Jews did things back in the day. Impressed or not it is a straightforward explanation. And I don't need to know what else impresses you or otherwise, thanks.

 

[Poisonshady313]

The most striking contradiction in the bible was that where two of the Gospels said that Jesus' father was of the line of David. This is extremely important, because Jesus had to be descended from David.

Matthew 1:6-16 says that Jesus was of the twenty-eighth generation of David, while Luke 3:21-31 says forty-two generations. Both say this is through the father.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, if Mary had Jesus as a virgin, how can we even include Joseph when trying to work out if Jesus descended from the line of David or not? Shouldn't Mary only be considered when trying to work out the ascendants of Jesus?

One of them said that he was of the forty-second generation, another said the twentieth. Even should this be ignored, Jesus cannot be considered of the line of David because Jesus was born of a virgin, so only his mother's relationship to

Problem is, in Judaism, only the father's line counts when reckoning Tribal affiliation... which means no matter what, Mary's line didn't count. If you buy the virgin birth, there is no link to David whatsoever.

 

[Autodidact]

Problem is, in Judaism, only the father's line counts when reckoning Tribal affiliation... which means no matter what, Mary's line didn't count. If you buy the virgin birth, there is no link to David whatsoever.

Looks like those gospel writers got a little too fancy for their own good. You can have House of David, or you can have virgin birth, but you can't have both.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Looks like those gospel writers got a little too fancy for their own good. You can have House of David, or you can have virgin birth, but you can't have both.

That's right.

 

[rocketman]

Problem is, in Judaism, only the father's line counts when reckoning Tribal affiliation... which means no matter what, Mary's line didn't count. If you buy the virgin birth, there is no link to David whatsoever.

There is yet another possibility, Mary may have been from the house of David and she may not have had any brothers. According toNum 27:8, "Therefore, tell the Israelites; If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall let his heritage pass on to his daughter." Given the notoriously patriarchial approach at the day it would be expected that the boys close ranks and refer to Jesus as the son of Joseph. Either way, the gospel writers had no problem calling Jesus both born of a virgin and of the house of David. They simply don't tell us exactly why however, but that's hardly a 'contradiction'

 

[gnostic]

Either way, the gospel writers had no problem calling Jesus both born of a virgin and of the house of David. They simply don't tell us exactly why however, but that's hardly a 'contradiction'

But it would have been far relevant to list Mary's genealogy than Joseph's.

 

[Poisonshady313]

There is yet another possibility, Mary may have been from the house of David and she may not have had any brothers. According toNum 27:8, "Therefore, tell the Israelites; If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall let his heritage pass on to his daughter."

Numbers 27 talks about material inheritance. Land, animals, gold, etc... It has nothing to do with one's bloodline and tribal affiliation.

Given the notoriously patriarchial approach at the day it would be expected that the boys close ranks and refer to Jesus as the son of Joseph. Either way, the gospel writers had no problem calling Jesus both born of a virgin and of the house of David. They simply don't tell us exactly why however, but that's hardly a 'contradiction'

If Jesus has no fatherly lineage, he certainly doesn't have a lineage to David... thus he cannot be called "son of David."

 

[Poisonshady313]

But it would have been far relevant to list Mary's genealogy than Joseph's.

Not at all. When talking of tribal affiliation, the mother's genealogy is irrelevant.

When a Jewish woman gets married, she becomes a part of her husband's household. Her lineage means nothing to the child, except that the child is Jewish.

 

[rojse]

It would not have been inconsistent with the practices of the time for Jesus to have been accepted as an adopted son into the 'House' of David. Biological descent was not always the only factor at work. Legal necessity drove this approach, but it also fits in with the needs of the gospel writers.

If you want to claim that he is a descendent of David, you need to use biological descendence. You cannot say Jesus descended from David, "but it's through his adoptive father (I don't like this terms in this context, but I can't think of anything better), whom didn't actually sire the child, so to speak."

Anyway, if you are trying to work out whether Jesus was the messiah and all of that, assuming from the start that he was born of a virgin is sort of illogical, is it not, or assuming that Joseph is the father to work out whether he has descended from David, and assuming that Mary was a virgin to work out that he is the chosen one is quite illogical.

 

[rocketman]

When a Jewish woman gets married, she becomes a part of her husband's household. Her lineage means nothing to the child, except that the child is Jewish.

Ok, so Jewish law doesn't actually cover this then? It's a special case, and that being the case I ask what would happen if a 1stC Jewish couple, both of whom could trace their desendency back to David, had a child through the miracle of a virgin birth? Would he legally belong to no Jewish house at all? I don't think so. If he has the DNA of at least one of them, then he's fine. And there is the answer.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Ok, so Jewish law doesn't actually cover this then? It's a special case, and that being the case I ask what would happen if a 1stC Jewish couple, both of whom could trace their desendency back to David, had a child through the miracle of a virgin birth? Would he legally belong to no Jewish house at all? I don't think so. If he has the DNA of at least one of them, then he's fine. And there is the answer.

No. If there is no biological father (or he is at the very least unknown), then the child has no tribe. If a non-Jewish man fathers a child with a Jewish woman, the child is Jewish, but is of no tribe.

A child is the son of his father. If there is no father, there is no tribe.

And there is your answer.