[quote=Baz](I know this is an old thread but I just couldn't bare to leave his question unanswered.)
[quote=Infidel]Ok then. For the THIRD time......who was Jospeh's father?
Quote:
I have an answer for you Infidel. Hope I help.
Anyway,
In jewish tradition, some husbands are also considered 'sons' by their father-in-laws. So either Heli or Jacob may be Joseph's biological father and one Mary's biological Father. Mary also has the same root descendants as her husband Joseph: King David, Abraham, etc. (yes, they were VERY distantly related).
I looked up the two Bible quotes you posted earlier Infidel and I notice that according to the geneologies, King David had two descendants, Nathan and Solomon. In the two geneologies you referred to, the family line was EXACTLY the same until Nathan and Solomon from David split it off.
The Geneologies are waaay different after Nathan and Solomon with completely different people who were distantly related from both sides. Eventually, the family tree reunited again with the marriage of Mary and Joseph both of whom are direct decendants of King David and even further back, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
God not only blesses and makes promises to individuals, but entire bloodlines I notice. God set aside a SPECIAL bloodline coming down through Abraham to David, then eventually Jesus. God held a special covenant with them. I think that's why Abraham and David are most refered to in the Jew's ancestry. Jesus was called the root of David and in Genisis God promised Abraham that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars in the sky and in (Gen.22:15-18) God swore to Abraham that because He was willing to sacrifice his own son Isaac, little did He know, God would be more than willing to sacrifice HIS Son, the Lamb of God in the future for the sins of all of humanity, you and me  .
|
Hi Baz, welcome to the discussion.
I disagree with the theory that you've put forward to explain away the inconsistency.
Dr. Henry M. Morris, in his "The Defender's Study Bible" purports that the neither of the authors of Matthew or Luke "could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record." In other words, 'they couldn't be wrong, so oe of them must have been talking about Mary.' This strikes me as a typical apologist attempt to reconcile the errors in the bible. Many other inconsistencies are readily apparent when the "gospels" are compared. This is just another one.
Why didn't one of them refer to Mary explicitly? This was no ordinary woman, this was allegedly the mother of Jesus. If the words for son and son-in-law were interchangeable, wouldn't it make total sense to clearly describe one genealogy as belonging to Mary and the other to Joseph, especially when the two are in different books written by different authors at different times? If both were described in the same book, then maybe the explanation would be more feasible.
How do you get on this "special list" of individuals and bloodlines that the Christian god apparently has?