....

Bidam, Obadiah777, Pastor Kun, Pastor AIO and Fundies in the house you're needed ooooo.

OLADEGBU!!!
JOAGBAJE!!!

You're needed!!!.

Mr Joagbaje awaiting your reply.

There was a curse on coniah . I will get to it as soon as I'm through

That's the most worrisome thing about christians Apologetics they see the truth they flee, anywayz lovers of truth will view and make their decision namaste.

Joagbaje: There was a curse on coniah . I will get to it as soon as I'm through

liar....run to another thread to propagate your tithe fraud

Nolongthing1: Brethren Please I need you to help me clear this textual "palava" for it is written
Mark 2: 7
On hearing this, Jesus said to them,
"It is not the healthy who need a
doctor, but the SICK. I have not come
to call the righteous, but sinners."

Did the editor or writer of the book of mathew try to deceive the unsuspecting reader when he was penning the book giving the conflicting genealogy of jesus given by the writers of mathew and luke a close examination of that of mathew will reveal more than enough to us that there's actually something wrong with the genealogy and after i show you what the problem is i want you to prove me wrong in love like a christian is supposed to do because many christians take the bible to be the word of God which i don't agree with one of the so many reasons i don't i'll be detailing and i'll want a reasonable share of knowledge no name calling who knows you may win a soul for christ

In the book of matthew in other that jesus fulfil the messiahship prophesy the writer of mathew furnish him with a royal ancestry.

I'll like us to examine the genealogies in detail.Luke begins a stage earlier than matthew , making God his starting point instead of abraham. From Abraham to David the two authorities proceed together. Matthew , who has cut his genealogical tree into three sectors of fourteen generations, makes this his first division. After this the divergence begins
MATTHEW
1.Solomon
2.Rehoboam
3.Abia
4.Asa
5.Jehosaphat
6.Joram
[Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah] the kings the writer omitted.
7.Ozias ( Or Uzziah)
8.Jotham
9.Ahaz
10.Hezekiah
11.Manasseh
12.Amon
13.Josiah
[Jehohiakim]
14.Jeconiah( Or Jehoiachin)
Here the captivity closes the second period. After the captivity we have

1.Jeconiah
2.Salathiel(or Shealtiel)
3.Zerubbabel
4.Abuid
5.Eliakim
6.Azor
7.Sadoc
8.Achim
9.Eluid.
10.Eleazar
11.Matthan
12.jacob
13.Joseph
14.JESUS

Mat. 1-17
It'll be observed that matthew , in his anxiety to show that the whole period comprised is divisible into three equal parts of fourteen generations each, has actually omitted no less than four generations contained in the authorities that he followed. For Since he traced the descent of joseph trough the royal line of Judah we are enabled to check his statements by reference to the book of chronicles ( 1 Chronicles 3) and thus to convict him of positive bad faith. In the first instance he omits three kings , representing Uzziah as the son of Joram , who was his great grandfather
;
In the second he passes over Jehoiachin , making Jehoiachin the son instead of the grandson of Josiah. In the third period we have no authority by which to verify his statements beyond Zerubbabel, but his determination to carry out his numerical systems at all hazards is shown by the double reckoning of Jehohiachim, at the close of the second and at the beginning of the third division.

The latter has in fact but thirteen generations , and it was only by this trick- a little concealed by the break effected through the allusion (Matt 1:11) to the CAPTIVITY - that the appearance of uniformity was maintained.*

Please i'll need you to compare and contrast the genealogy in mathew and that of 1Chronicles 3 before you refute this claim.

So My Point Is , If The Writer of matthew can play a trick as such in his writings how can all other stuffz he penned be trusted and even more obvious is his reference to dreams , mary's dream, josephs dream, the wise men dream etc one would see that dreaming was the other of the day then, and he never fails to make reference to the Old Testament by ardently suiting the nativity story of jesus trying to make him the anticipated messiah up to the point of quoting Isaiah 7:14 which was meant for King Ahaz which so many bible scholars attested to,

If Matthew can play such tricks why should i base my life on the bible and believe it's God's word since the Bible God is not expected to make mistakes and play tricks?

Thank You.

*The Atheist View Point (1872)

Interesting topic....and thought

Let me start by saying you are not the first person to observe this....those who gathered at the collection of the cannons (bible) noticed that. It is not a new discovery

Secondly the idea that Matthew was trying to deceive the people is not valid at all. First of all he was not aware that some people will canonise the book he wrote nor was he there to vote that his book should be canonised. Being a Jew himself, he is aware that the Jews kept records in the books of Kings and the book of Jasher.

Did he lie about any of those records? The answer is NO!. Jesus is called the son of David....and if that statement is true omitting some fathers to say this particular one is the son of a great-grandfather does not constitute deception if you understand the Hebrew culture.

I think if there was any trick to be played either Luke or Matthew would have been excluded by those who compiled the bible cannons.



Matthew is a Jew who is trying to explain from Jewish scriptures that God has fulfilled the promise. Luke on the other hand is very different from Matthew...he is not a Jew but a gentile physician and researcher. He probably recorded what he was told by Mary the mother of Jesus.

Since this topic has been dealt with by many theologians I would like to quote the work of Bishop N.T. Wright ( a canon theologian at Westminster Abbey)

Matthew tells us that Jesus fulfills at least three biblical themes. He brings Israel into the promised land; "Jesus" is the Greek for "Joshua." As Immanuel, he embodies God's presence with his people (Isaiah 7:14, quoted in 1:23). As the new David, he is the Messiah born at Bethlehem (2:5, fulfilling Micah 5:1-3). In the genealogy, Jesus is the point toward which Israel's long covenant history has been leading, particularly its puzzling and tragic latter phase. Matthew agrees with his Jewish contemporaries that the exile was the last significant event before Jesus; when the angel says that Jesus will "save his people from their sins" (1:21), liberation from exile is in view. Jesus, David's true descendant, will fulfill the Abrahamic covenant by undoing the exile and all that it means.

Well-known problems abound. Why does the genealogy finish with Joseph if Matthew is going to say that he wasn't Jesus' father after all? This cannot have been a problem for Matthew or he would hardly have followed the genealogy so closely with the story of the virginal conception. It was enough that Jesus was born into the Davidic family; adoption brought legitimation. Further, anyone can say that Matthew made it all up to fulfill Isaiah 7:14 ("the virgin shall conceive". Since Luke doesn't quote the same passage, though, the argument looks thin. Is Bethlehem mentioned only, perhaps, because of Micah 5:2-4? Again, Luke doesn't quote the same passage, but still gets Mary to Bethlehem for the birth. Some have questioned whether Herod would really have behaved in the way described in Matthew 2; the answer, from any reader of Josephus, would be a firm yes.

One can investigate, as many have, whether there really was a star. One can challenge the flight into Egypt as simply a back-projection from a fanciful reading of Hosea 11:1. These are the natural probing questions of the historian. As with most ancient history, of course, we cannot verify independently that which is reported only in one source. If that gives grounds for ruling it out, however, most of ancient history goes with it. Let us by all means be suspicious, but let us not be paranoid. Just because I've had a nightmare doesn't mean that there aren't burglars in the house. Just because Matthew says that something fulfilled scripture doesn't mean it didn't happen.

What then about his central claim, the virginal conception itself, dropped almost casually into the narrative, with no flourish of trumpets? Some have argued, of course, that there is instead a flourish of strumpets: Matthew has taken care to draw our attention to the peculiarities (to put it no stronger) of Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Batlisheba, presumably in order to warn us that something even stranger is coming; or perhaps to enable us, when the news is announced, to connect it with God's strange way of operating in the past. He is hardly likely on this occasion, however, to have made up the story of Mary's being with child by the Holy Spirit in order to "fulfill'" this theme

What about Luke, who tells the story from Mary's point of view? His setting is just as Jewish as Matthew's, with verbal and narratival allusions to and echoes of the Septuagint. Like Matthew, he insists that with this story Israel's history is reaching its God-ordained climax. But his emphasis, unlike Matthew's, is on the very Jewish point that this birth is a direct challenge to the pagan power: in other words, to Caesar. This fits with Luke's whole emphasis: the (very Jewish) gospel is for the whole world, of which Jesus is now the Lord. Israel's god is the king of the world; now, Jesus is the king of the world.

Attention has focused on the census in Luke 2:2-whether it took place and could have involved people traveling to their ancestral homes. But Luke's point has been missed. The census was the time of the great revolt-the rebellion of Judas the Galilean, which Luke not only knows about but allows Gamaliel to compare with Jesus and his movement (Acts 5:37). Luke is deliberately aligning Jesus with the Jewish kingdom-movements, the revolutions which declared that there would be "no king but God."

The census is not, of course, the only query that people have raised about Luke's birth stories. Jesus' birth at Bethlehem seems to have been a puzzle to Luke, which he explains by the census, rather than something he invents for other reasons. The fact that Luke does not mention the wise men, nor Matthew the shepherds, is not a reason for doubting either; this sort of thing crops up in ancient historical sources all the time. Of course, legends surround the birth and childhood of many figures who afterwards become important. As historians we have no reason to say that this did not happen in the case of Jesus, and some reasons to say that it did. But by comparison with other legends about other figures, Matthew and Luke look, after all, quite restrained

Except, of course, in the matter where the real interest centers. Matthew and Luke declare unambiguously that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. What are we to make of this? It will not do to say that we know the laws of nature and that Joseph, Mary, the early church and the evangelists did not. Mary and Joseph hadn't seen diagrams of Fallopian tubes, but that doesn't mean they didn't know where babies came from. Hence Mary's question to Gabriel (in Luke), and Joseph's determination to break the engagement (in Matthew).

Culled from N.T. Wright, "God's Way of Acting" Christian Century, December 16, 1998, pp. 1215-17

I hope that helps

@ Nolongthing: Inasmuch as you asked for born-again Christians I would like to comment. The Bible isn't entirely trustworthy as a historical document. Some aspects of it I gather to be vetted by history eg the King Nebuchadnezzar's existence, the joining of the tribes under David etc But some parts lack any sort of historical vericity outside the Bible and in fact, the Dead Sea scrolls (the oldest found COPIES of parts of the Bible) notwithstanding the book is flawed. For example, not even a single document in ancient Egypt or regions around verify the Exodus, relatively few Christians know the controversy that surrounded the Scripture especially the writings of Paul after Jesus' death, the Romans were known to keep very copious records (in fact many details of the past historians know were written in Latin), remember Romans gave jurisprudence to the world, and NO Roman documents records any census being called as at the time of Jesus' estimated birth, which as Jehovah's Witnesses rightly say isn't Dec 25, Christmas having its roots in pagan traditions which corrupted the church after Constantine. I used to believe the Bible IN SPITE of these things and now doubt it BECAUSE of it. But one thing is sure, if you place Biblical inerrancy and yoir faith more important than finding answers as to whether the Bible is true, you'll be trapped in a circle of Christian thought were facts are twisted to fit into the Bible and not the other way round as it should be.

belabela:

Interesting topic....and thought

Let me start by saying you are not the first person to observe this....those who gathered at the collection of the cannons (bible) noticed that. It is not a new discovery

Secondly the idea that Matthew was trying to deceive the people is not valid at all. First of all he was not aware that some people will canonise the book he wrote nor was he there to vote that his book should be canonised. Being a Jew himself, he is aware that the Jews kept records in the books of Kings and the book of Jasher.

Did he lie about any of those records? The answer is NO!. Jesus is called the son of David....and if that statement is true omitting some fathers to say this particular one is the son of a great-grandfather does not constitute deception if you understand the Hebrew culture.

I think if there was any trick to be played either Luke or Matthew would have been excluded by those who compiled the bible cannons.



Matthew is a Jew who is trying to explain from Jewish scriptures that God has fulfilled the promise. Luke on the other hand is very different from Matthew...he is not a Jew but a gentile physician and researcher. He probably recorded what he was told by Mary the mother of Jesus.

Since this topic has been dealt with by many theologians I would like to quote the work of Bishop N.T. Wright ( a canon theologian at Westminster Abbey)



I hope that helps

Sir why did matthew omit some kings just to point out that the generations can be split into 3 groups of fourteen generations when it's not actually like that and my post is also to dispel the illusion that the bible is the literal word of God and infallible if it's truly is then matthew needn't omit the kings and and luke genealogy shouldn't be longer than is Thank You.

Uyi Iredia: @ Nolongthing: Inasmuch as you asked for born-again Christians I would like to comment. The Bible isn't entirely trustworthy as a historical document. Some aspects of it I gather to be vetted by history eg the King Nebuchadnezzar's existence, the joining of the tribes under David etc But some parts lack any sort of historical vericity outside the Bible and in fact, the Dead Sea scrolls (the oldest found COPIES of parts of the Bible) notwithstanding the book is flawed. For example, not even a single document in ancient Egypt or regions around verify the Exodus, relatively few Christians know the controversy that surrounded the Scripture especially the writings of Paul after Jesus' death, the Romans were known to keep very copious records (in fact many details of the past historians know were written in Latin), remember Romans gave jurisprudence to the world, and NO Roman documents records any census being called as at the time of Jesus' estimated birth, which as Jehovah's Witnesses rightly say isn't Dec 25, Christmas having its roots in pagan traditions which corrupted the church after Constantine. I used to believe the Bible IN SPITE of these things and now doubt it BECAUSE of it. But one thing is sure, if you place Biblical inerrancy and yoir faith more important than finding answers as to whether the Bible is true, you'll be trapped in a circle of Christian thought were facts are twisted to fit into the Bible and not the other way round as it should be.

Uyi i get i just want some Fundie to know that the bible is not infallible like they claim and some pastors don't even know as much as some of us who have dugged dip know wrt to the cannonization and the pagan holiday made christmas u just mentioned as it can't be found anywhere in the scriptures except that it is believed the birth of the christian christ was during winter , Some Fundie just believe everything in it is God's word Verbatim.

....

Nolongthing1:

Uyi i get i just want some Fundie to know that the bible is not infallible like they claim and some pastors don't even know as much as some of us who have dugged dip know wrt to the cannonization and the pagan holiday made christmas u just mentioned as it can't be found anywhere in the scriptures except that it is believed the birth of the christian christ was during winter , Some Fundie just believe everything in it is God's word Verbatim.

'Twould be harder than the Biblical camel assing through the needle's eye . . . for some that is. They are so scared of hell and deluded that they can't consider whether it is wrong. They could start by considering funny things people believed, some which they now scorn eg few people now would believe Zeus was responsible for lightning or that they will go to Hades and meet Hades minions for being bad but Greeks believed such stuff then. BTW hell isn't unique to Christianity, older religions like the Greek and ancient Egyptian worship believed in an afterlife of punishment.

Uyi Iredia:


'Twould be harder than the Biblical camel assing through the needle's eye . . . for some that is. They are so scared of hell and deluded that they can't consider whether it is wrong. They could start by considering funny things people believed, some which they now scorn eg few people now would believe Zeus was responsible for lightning or that they will go to Hades and meet Hades minions for being bad but Greeks believed such stuff then. BTW hell isn't unique to Christianity, older religions like the Greek and ancient Egyptian worship believed in an afterlife of punishment.

the hell concept was adopted from Greek paganism into xtianity...

ooman:

the hell concept was adopted from Greek paganism into xtianity...

The Greeks likely adopted it from the Egyptians. For one I have read that Greeks studied in Egyptian mystery cults who taught sciences and religions. I believe my initial statement even moreso after reading the translation, of a very old book, written in heiroglyphucs, The Book Of The Dead, which included words to be said to ensure the soul avoided the bad afterlife of punishment.

Uyi Iredia:


'Twould be harder than the Biblical camel assing through the needle's eye . . . for some that is. They are so scared of hell and deluded that they can't consider whether it is wrong. They could start by considering funny things people believed, some which they now scorn eg few people now would believe Zeus was responsible for lightning or that they will go to Hades and meet Hades minions for being bad but Greeks believed such stuff then. BTW hell isn't unique to Christianity, older religions like the Greek and ancient Egyptian worship believed in an afterlife of punishment.

I understand because i was once like that too, given that hell was not PROBABLY mentioned in the Old Testament and the messiah the jew people were expecting is not anyway closer to the character of jesus painted in the bible they were expecting someone who will make Isreal great as was in the days.of yore a warrior and again thr second coming was a totally novel concept.it was no where mentioned in the old testament.

Uyi Iredia: @ Nolongthing: Inasmuch as you asked for born-again Christians I would like to comment. The Bible isn't entirely trustworthy as a historical document. Some aspects of it I gather to be vetted by history eg the King Nebuchadnezzar's existence, the joining of the tribes under David etc But some parts lack any sort of historical vericity outside the Bible and in fact, the Dead Sea scrolls (the oldest found COPIES of parts of the Bible) notwithstanding the book is flawed. For example, not even a single document in ancient Egypt or regions around verify the Exodus, relatively few Christians know the controversy that surrounded the Scripture especially the writings of Paul after Jesus' death, the Romans were known to keep very copious records (in fact many details of the past historians know were written in Latin), remember Romans gave jurisprudence to the world, and NO Roman documents records any census being called as at the time of Jesus' estimated birth, which as Jehovah's Witnesses rightly say isn't Dec 25, Christmas having its roots in pagan traditions which corrupted the church after Constantine. I used to believe the Bible IN SPITE of these things and now doubt it BECAUSE of it. But one thing is sure, if you place Biblical inerrancy and yoir faith more important than finding answers as to whether the Bible is true, you'll be trapped in a circle of Christian thought were facts are twisted to fit into the Bible and not the other way round as it should be.

It is true that some stories in the bible do not always have a documented support from secular world, however, we need to understand that some of these stories happened many years ago and this could affect any document that may have been in existence then.

worthy of note is that some biblical accounts that had been doubted in the past later were vindicated by archaeological finds.

With time and research some evidence will keep coming to confirm what the bible says, but the bible is still reliable.

Christians in the first century echoed some of these events, confirming that it wasnt a folktale.

Nolongthing1:

Brethren Please I need you to help me clear this textual "palava" for it is written
Mark 2: 7
On hearing this, Jesus said to them,
"It is not the healthy who need a
doctor, but the SICK. I have not come
to call the righteous, but sinners."

Did the editor or writer of the book of mathew try to deceive the unsuspecting reader when he was penning the book giving the conflicting genealogy of jesus given by the writers of mathew and luke a close examination of that of mathew will reveal more than enough to us that there's actually something wrong with the genealogy and after i show you what the problem is i want you to prove me wrong in love like a christian is supposed to do because many christians take the bible to be the word of God which i don't agree with one of the so many reasons i don't i'll be detailing and i'll want a reasonable share of knowledge no name calling who knows you may win a soul for christ

In the book of matthew in other that jesus fulfil the messiahship prophesy the writer of mathew furnish him with a royal ancestry.

I'll like us to examine the genealogies in detail.Luke begins a stage earlier than matthew , making God his starting point instead of abraham. From Abraham to David the two authorities proceed together. Matthew , who has cut his genealogical tree into three sectors of fourteen generations, makes this his first division. After this the divergence begins
MATTHEW
1.Solomon
2.Rehoboam
3.Abia
4.Asa
5.Jehosaphat
6.Joram
[Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah] the kings the writer omitted.
7.Ozias ( Or Uzziah)
8.Jotham
9.Ahaz
10.Hezekiah
11.Manasseh
12.Amon
13.Josiah
[Jehohiakim]
14.Jeconiah( Or Jehoiachin)
Here the captivity closes the second period. After the captivity we have

1.Jeconiah
2.Salathiel(or Shealtiel)
3.Zerubbabel
4.Abuid
5.Eliakim
6.Azor
7.Sadoc
8.Achim
9.Eluid.
10.Eleazar
11.Matthan
12.jacob
13.Joseph
14.JESUS

Mat. 1-17
It'll be observed that matthew , in his anxiety to show that the whole period comprised is divisible into three equal parts of fourteen generations each, has actually omitted no less than four generations contained in the authorities that he followed. For Since he traced the descent of joseph trough the royal line of Judah we are enabled to check his statements by reference to the book of chronicles ( 1 Chronicles 3) and thus to convict him of positive bad faith. In the first instance he omits three kings , representing Uzziah as the son of Joram , who was his great grandfather
;
In the second he passes over Jehoiachin , making Jehoiachin the son instead of the grandson of Josiah. In the third period we have no authority by which to verify his statements beyond Zerubbabel, but his determination to carry out his numerical systems at all hazards is shown by the double reckoning of Jehohiachim, at the close of the second and at the beginning of the third division.

The latter has in fact but thirteen generations , and it was only by this trick- a little concealed by the break effected through the allusion (Matt 1:11) to the CAPTIVITY - that the appearance of uniformity was maintained.*

Please i'll need you to compare and contrast the genealogy in mathew and that of 1Chronicles 3 before you refute this claim.

So My Point Is , If The Writer of matthew can play a trick as such in his writings how can all other stuffz he penned be trusted and even more obvious is his reference to dreams , mary's dream, josephs dream, the wise men dream etc one would see that dreaming was the other of the day then, and he never fails to make reference to the Old Testament by ardently suiting the nativity story of jesus trying to make him the anticipated messiah up to the point of quoting Isaiah 7:14 which was meant for King Ahaz which so many bible scholars attested to,

If Matthew can play such tricks why should i base my life on the bible and believe it's God's word since the Bible God is not expected to make mistakes and play tricks?

Thank You.

*The Atheist View Point (1872)

To be laconic. Matthew in (Matthew 1:1) gives the paternal genealogy of our Lord Jesus Christ, while Dr. Luke in (Luke 3:23) gives His maternal genealogy. Nolongthing

I do not profess to be born again.

The earliest of the synoptic writers is the author of Mark, he gives us his narrative based on his sources, being the earliest writer, he remains our best and most reliable source. We know also that the authors of Matthew and Luke also drew from Mark as a source. Mark gives us no birth narrative whatsoever, he simply introduces us to Jesus as a fully grown man from Gallilee at the Jordan

In the early years after the death of Jesus, Mark's gospel would have been the only narrative available. The Apostle Paul wrote earlier than all the gospels but gives us no birth narrative. Therefore it is likely that None of the early Christians who lived in the time period of the death of Jesus and the twenty or so years it took for the gospel of Matthew to appear after the gospel of Mark (let alone Luke) would have had any idea that a Jesus was born of a virgin or b Jesus descended from the Royal house of David, and why would they think so ?

We have the genealogies and birth narratives from Matthew and Luke and frankly neither tallies, the gospel of John can't be bothered with a birth narrative and simply assigns Jesus to pre-existence.

The author of Matthew simply wishes to place the birth of Jesus at a particular place. He also wishes to show a particular lineage of descendency for Jesus simply to demonstrate a fulfilled prophecy ....a prophecy which in itself was erroneously attributed to Jesus.

OLAADEGBU:

To be laconic. Matthew in (Matthew 1:1) gives the paternal genealogy of our Lord Jesus Christ, while Dr. Luke in (Luke 3:23) gives His maternal genealogy. Nolongthing

Pastor please don't play that intellectual gymnastic with me please why would you claim Luke's genealogy is mary's? was it stated explicitly anywhere in the bible he did the right thing by trying to show jesus' descent from the father's side which is the right thing and mary's is reference to be the cousin of elisabeth(Luke 1:5-7) of a family of Aaron which is a priestly Lineage(Luke 1:67-79) , How does it tally with that of Judah which David is from and please address the real question why did matthew skip some kings? since the bible is believed by Fundies to be word of God Verbertim.

And Lastly you said Luke's genealogy is mary's why the difference in numbers between his and that of matthew which rovers around 400-450 generations so was Joseph that Old and married mary pls tell us another lie.

Bump.

OLAADEGBU:

To be laconic. Matthew in (Matthew 1:1) gives the paternal genealogy of our Lord Jesus Christ, while Dr. Luke in (Luke 3:23) gives His maternal genealogy. Nolongthing

You have come with your lies again, eh?. . .Where is it written in the bible?. .

"Christians claim that Lukes account is Marys fathers genealogy through Heli and Matthews account is Josephs genealogy. This is very unlikely, as we shall soon see. If David was a common ancestor of both Marys fathers line and Josephs line then obviously the two genealogies split from David into his two sons, Nathan carried Mary's fathers line and Solomon carried Josephs line. All good to start off with, but we run into a major problem when we get to the name Salathiel and his son Zorobabel which are shared by both lists. See Mary's fathers line says that Salathiel was the son of Neri whereas Josephs line says that he was the son of Jechonias. Unless Neri and Jechonias were homosexual parents to Salathiel, there is no possible way to resolve this conflict. Even trying to go the way of father-inlaw like with Josephs father (both Heli and Jacob) doesnt work because if Salathiel wife's father was Neri and Salathiel's father was Jechonias then the Mary's fathers line would be broken. The only way to resolve the two accounts on this point is to say that one of the genealogies is wrong"

http://antecessor.hubpages.com/hub/Bible-Contradictions-The-Geneology-of-Jesus

mazaje:

You have come with your lies again, eh?. . .Where is it written in the bible?. .

"Christians claim that Lukes account is Marys fathers genealogy through Heli and Matthews account is Josephs genealogy. This is very unlikely, as we shall soon see. If David was a common ancestor of both Marys fathers line and Josephs line then obviously the two genealogies split from David into his two sons, Nathan carried Mary's fathers line and Solomon carried Josephs line. All good to start off with, but we run into a major problem when we get to the name Salathiel and his son Zorobabel which are shared by both lists. See Mary's fathers line says that Salathiel was the son of Neri whereas Josephs line says that he was the son of Jechonias. Unless Neri and Jechonias were homosexual parents to Salathiel, there is no possible way to resolve this conflict. Even trying to go the way of father-inlaw like with Josephs father (both Heli and Jacob) doesnt work because if Salathiel wife's father was Neri and Salathiel's father was Jechonias then the Mary's fathers line would be broken. The only way to resolve the two accounts on this point is to say that one of the genealogies is wrong"

http://antecessor.hubpages.com/hub/Bible-Contradictions-The-Geneology-of-Jesus

No Mind the guy , him run commot since