• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:23] Orthodox Christianity ama

Elvira said:
No, that would be Matthew and Luke, not Matthew and John...the difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew...Luke 3:31; Matthew 1:6, 7...Luke follows the ancestry of Mary, showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father...Both Matthew and Luke verify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right...
Click to expand...

Almost no critical scholars think that..

Paternity was only counted through the male line..


For example...

If I marry your sister. She is part of my line now.. our children my namesakes..


“A minority view holds that while Luke gives the genealogy of Joseph, Matthew gives the genealogy of Mary. A few ancient authorities seem to offer this interpretation.[62] Although the Greek text as it stands is plainly against it, it has been proposed that in the original text Matthew had one Joseph as Mary's father and another as her husband. This neatly explains not only why Matthew's genealogy differs from Luke's, but also why Matthew counts fourteen generations rather than thirteen. Blair sees the various extant versions as the predictable result of copyists repeatedly attempting to correct an apparent mistake.[12] Others, including Victor Paul Wierwille,[63] argue that here the Aramaic original of Matthew used the word gowra (which could mean father), which, in the absence of vowel markings, was read by the Greek translator as gura (husband).[64] In any case, an early understanding that Matthew traced Mary's genealogy would explain why the contradiction between Matthew and Luke apparently escaped notice until the 3rd century.[citation needed” Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ArtemisBarca said:
Almost no critical scholars think that..

Paternity was only counted through the male line..


For example...

If I marry your sister. She is part of my line now.. our children my namesakes..


“A minority view holds that while Luke gives the genealogy of Joseph, Matthew gives the genealogy of Mary. A few ancient authorities seem to offer this interpretation.[62] Although the Greek text as it stands is plainly against it, it has been proposed that in the original text Matthew had one Joseph as Mary's father and another as her husband. This neatly explains not only why Matthew's genealogy differs from Luke's, but also why Matthew counts fourteen generations rather than thirteen. Blair sees the various extant versions as the predictable result of copyists repeatedly attempting to correct an apparent mistake.[12] Others, including Victor Paul Wierwille,[63] argue that here the Aramaic original of Matthew used the word gowra (which could mean father), which, in the absence of vowel markings, was read by the Greek translator as gura (husband).[64] In any case, an early understanding that Matthew traced Mary's genealogy would explain why the contradiction between Matthew and Luke apparently escaped notice until the 3rd century.[citation needed”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

For example, that has nothing whatsoever to do with you accusing Matthew and Luke of giving different lineages, as if there was something fraudulent going on, which is not true...I explained why the difference...you could've saved yourself the trouble of writing that garbage...
 
Elvira said:
For example, that has nothing whatsoever to do with you accusing Matthew and Luke of giving different lineages, as if there was something fraudulent going on, which is not true...I explained why the difference...you could've saved yourself the trouble of writing that garbage...
Click to expand...

The lineage goes through the biological fathers side, in call cases. Think about it.,
 
RAMOSS said:
The lineage goes through the biological fathers side, in call cases. Think about it.,
Click to expand...

One simply has to read the relevant texts to know the 'Mary' story is specious, let alone understand Jewish custom. If he is the 'Son of God' born to a virgin, then it doesn't matter, but the Moschiah has to be of the House of David, so they contrived the 'adoption' story based upon Roman practice, and then try to manipulate the text by claiming one genealogy goes through Mary's side, despite the text explicitly stating otherwise.

It's just concocted BS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom