How do we know what Jesus said when no one was there, anyway?

[Lion IRC]

The alleged contradiction relates to Joseph's fathers not Jesus'

 

[Copernicus]

The important thing was that Jesus had to be at the end of a string of begats that started with David in order to qualify as the genuine Messiah. He was also supposed to lead the Israelites to victory over their oppressors and restore the realm. That didn't happen, but it was a minor detail, since a version of the messiah myth evolved that allowed for martyrdom.

 

[bilby]

The important thing was that Jesus had to be at the end of a string of begats that started with David in order to qualify as the genuine Messiah. He was also supposed to lead the Israelites to victory over their oppressors and restore the realm. That didn't happen, but it was a minor detail, since a version of the messiah myth evolved that allowed for martyrdom.

Actually, the important thing in the context of this thread is that this is an incontrovertible contradiction in the Bible.

It completely and totally contradicts LionIRC's assertion that the Bible contains no contradictions, which is why he refers to it as 'alleged', when it is as alleged as the nose on his face. As a wise man once said:

I agree that if there were contradictions in the bible it could be a challenge to faith.

Here we have a clear contradiction - on the question of who Joseph's father was. Two clear statements, that contradict one another.

I am sure LionIRC will be along in a minute to explain why this is not, after all, the challenge to faith he predicted it could be.

 

[WAB]

The important thing was that Jesus had to be at the end of a string of begats that started with David in order to qualify as the genuine Messiah. He was also supposed to lead the Israelites to victory over their oppressors and restore the realm. That didn't happen, but it was a minor detail, since a version of the messiah myth evolved that allowed for martyrdom.

Actually, the important thing in the context of this thread is that this is an incontrovertible contradiction in the Bible.

It completely and totally contradicts LionIRC's assertion that the Bible contains no contradictions, which is why he refers to it as 'alleged', when it is as alleged as the nose on his face. As a wise man once said:

I agree that if there were contradictions in the bible it could be a challenge to faith.

Here we have a clear contradiction - on the question of who Joseph's father was. Two clear statements, that contradict one another.

I am sure LionIRC will be along in a minute to explain why this is not, after all, the challenge to faith he predicted it could be.

No doubt. Hard-line eschatological inerrantists are extremely stubborn, and indefatigable.

I would link to the Monty Python sketch re Camelot: "quite in-deee-fa-teee-gable"; but I fear I am already in enough doo-doo, [Look! Look! I'm being repressed! ] with y'all around here, and with One Higher than ye. Yea, all of ye...verily.

 

[Learner]

Not the first time I've heard that 'Jesus had two daddies.' Why, I've even seen bumper stickers to that effect.

However- are you seriously implying here that Jesus did in fact have 2 recognized human fathers- both named Joseph??

Matt. 1:16- And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23- And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son[/B] of Joseph, which was the son of Heli

And both, coincidentally, being descended from David, though by totally different tracks?

As Lion indicates its to do with Joseph's fathers.

The alleged contradiction relates to Joseph's fathers not Jesus'

Luke never mentions that Heli begat Joseph as Matt does with; "Jacob begat Joseph".

Did you put into account that the two tracks to David i.e. One going back to "Nathan" and the other through "Solomon" which is two seperate lines obviously? For example: Tradition of the old custom, in short, (looking into it further) is through the male of course, a direct geneology and also through "inheritance" and unification marriage customs i.e. being a Son...in-law being more likely.

Luke is indicating imo that Jesus is still a descendent of David by Joseph adopting Jesus as his son being the husband of Mary (Customary law) and in any-case, the bloodline(as with Joseph) would still be through Mary if going back via Nathan, also the son of David,

Here we have a clear contradiction - on the question of who Joseph's father was. Two clear statements, that contradict one another.

Not a contradiction to rely (weightedly) on, in this case in the realms of "much more in content to the bible" .

 

[Keith&Co.]

Luke never mentions that Heli begat Joseph as Matt does with; "Jacob begat Joseph".

No, but that seems less than a useful observation.
The verse reads: "the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..."
So, you read that to say Joseph who was NOT begat by Heli, but married his daughter and adopted the kid she popped out..."?

And they never actually mention MARY in Jesus' bloodline THROUGH Mary...

 

[Learner]

No, but that seems less than a useful observation.
The verse reads: "the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..."
So, you read that to say Joseph who was NOT begat by Heli, but married his daughter and adopted the kid she popped out..."?

Yes but in original Greek its written as "Joseph of Heli" not "Joseph the son of Heli". (No word "son" is used, let alone begat of begot)

And they never actually mention MARY in Jesus' bloodline THROUGH Mary...

True but... the two lineages are mentioned both of Heli and of Jacob to David. Of course a deduction on my part ,which sounds right imo (Just getting into this particular contradiction). One begat Joseph but not the other ... what the text says. Son in-law sounds more logical to me. Than Joseph having contradicting" two biological dads" ... as being accepted as the Jewish contextual understanding - to be allowed and be put into the bible.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No, but that seems less than a useful observation.
The verse reads: "the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..."
So, you read that to say Joseph who was NOT begat by Heli, but married his daughter and adopted the kid she popped out..."?

Yes but in original Greek its written as "Joseph of Heli" not "Joseph the son of Heli". (No word "son" is used, let alone begat of begot)

So, after mentioning Joseph of Heli, does it go to using begat for the rest of the lineage? Or is 'A of X' pretty much the standard through the whole bloodline?
Does the 'original' make a distinction in how it connects Joseph to Heli, or does it look the same all the way along?

And they never actually mention MARY in Jesus' bloodline THROUGH Mary...

True but... the two lineages are mentioned

Ooh, small problem, there. You assume they are two lineages, not just contradictory reports of the one lineage, in order to figure out that they're two lineages.... Kinda circular.

both of Heli and of Jacob to David. Of course a deduction on my part ,which sounds right imo

Not really a deduction, though.
to deduce something, you have to take away things until you're left with the truth.

You're introducing this 'son-in-law' detail, making it up, to match what you want to believe the Book tells you.
It's not a logical deduction, it's a detail you need to add to make the answer add up.

 

[Learner]

So, after mentioning Joseph of Heli, does it go to using begat for the rest of the lineage? Or is 'A of X' pretty much the standard through the whole bloodline?
Does the 'original' make a distinction in how it connects Joseph to Heli, or does it look the same all the way along?

Good point! ... But exactly if it is the case - repeated throughout. Then what is the biological connection? The suggested contradiction is relying on the biological connection which is not said in the original Greek text.( Without adoptions) It would be better a contradiction to get the name compltely wrong or a different Joseph but not two whole lineages to be mentioned the way it is.

You're introducing this 'son-in-law' detail, making it up, to match what you want to believe the Book tells you.
It's not a logical deduction, it's a detail you need to add to make the answer add up.

Well I am a little more biased from the theist pov. Thats normal. Not dishonest. Besides Isn't that the same as the posts using two biological dads? Which I certainly don't believe the proposed contradiction concept. i.e. Not enough to go on.

I think my guess (if not deduced correctly) is valid enough - in light of what I understand of there being traditions and customs, adoptions and the deliberate mention of two geneologies.
An opinion like any other .

Unless.... its those Pharisees (I say half jestingly).

 

[Keith&Co.]

Good point! ... But exactly if it is the case - repeated throughout. Then what is the biological connection? The suggested contradiction is relying on the biological connection which is not said in the original Greek text.

What are you talking about? It's presented as his bloodline, his familiar connection to David, right? Proving his right to claim Grand Poobah status. Why present it if it's anything other than a biological connection? What would be accomplished if it's meant to say "Joseph, who knew Heli, who once met Matthat, who used to get drunk with Levi, who used to pants Melchi..."?

It would be better a contradiction to get the name compltely wrong or a different Joseph but not two whole lineages to be mentioned the way it is.

Adorable.
it's still a contradiction. Two bloodlines presented for Jesus, and your solution is based on one being for someone who isn't mentioned at all in the bloodline, and maybe 'of' being 'adoption.'

Well I am a little more biased from the theist pov. Thats normal. Not dishonest.

It IS if you're pretending that you're evaluating what's written in scripture, when what you're really doing is what we've come to call 'spin.' Changing the content to match what you think it should say, not interpreting what it actually says.

Besides Isn't that the same as the posts using two biological dads?

But that's what it actually says, no? Two different places report two different bloodlines.
A pretty clear contradiction unless you spin-doctor the text.

I think my guess (if not deduced correctly) is valid enough

Except there are, like, four places in the Bible that say it's a sin to add details to holy scripture.

Other than that, you might be right. You'll just burn in Hell for being correct....

 

[Learner]

What are you talking about? It's presented as his bloodline, his familiar connection to David, right? Proving his right to claim Grand Poobah status. Why present it if it's anything other than a biological connection? What would be accomplished if it's meant to say "Joseph, who knew Heli, who once met Matthat, who used to get drunk with Levi, who used to pants Melchi..."?

As the matter of accomplishment? It isn't one if its controversial. It wouldn't actually make a difference which lineage of the two it is; so longs as the lineage is descending from David,... unless one was to think, done purposely to cause such controversy and contradiction, which I doubt imo but who knows?. And .. allowing it as gospel in the first place without scribes and biblical officials not noticing - or not making sense at all, during the time under scrutiny for the canonization to the bible.

Been looking into two-dads a little further and at other people ideas ,suggestions or theories (some of the same as I thought i.e. son in-law suggestion, but more in depth and way way before me) which has been quite a debate for sometime (that is new to me - Joseph and two dads).

BUT..I have discovered / realised that Luke goes from Joseph backwards to David where as Matthew goes from David descending down to Joseph. That I can see why there is no "begat" in Lukes geneology : No begats possible going backwards from son to father! (I see it now ) So it is then - STILL an unanswered question, despite there being quite a few ideas by various people but not making claims (so far).

Adorable.
it's still a contradiction. Two bloodlines presented for Jesus, and your solution is based on one being for someone who isn't mentioned at all in the bloodline, and maybe 'of' being 'adoption.'

Well I am a little more biased from the theist pov. Thats normal. Not dishonest.

It IS if you're pretending that you're evaluating what's written in scripture, when what you're really doing is what we've come to call 'spin.' Changing the content to match what you think it should say, not interpreting what it actually says.

True to some point (as long as one accurately points out the pretending) but sometimes what it says doesn't say much in the itself (Lukes Jo-dad) compared to Matthew's example which has more text with the relationship of Joseph and Jacob between them and events surrounding them.

In my case IOW; I have always thought and mentally registered Jacob the father as far back as I can remember and to be honest, hadn't actually thought of any Heli or this actual contradiction argument which (not deliberately) has just flown right over my head... apart from it being highlighted on this thread.

But that's what it actually says, no? Two different places report two different bloodlines.
A pretty clear contradiction unless you spin-doctor the text.

Yes indeed but not weighty enough to be problematic.

 

[Lion IRC]

I see the original accusation of a "two dads" contradiction has given way to a much more diluted argument over whether Jesus is of the House of David.

Mary was descended from David.
Joseph was descended from David.
Heli was descended from David.
Jacob was descended from David.
Where is the problem?

 

[James Brown]

What was Joseph's father's name?

Why did Matthew assert twenty-eight generations between David and Jesus when Luke lists forty-three? A cursory reading of Matthew's genealogy would suggest that Matthew sliced-and-diced some generations in order to make the numbers neatly line up (14 g's from Abraham to David, 14 g's from David to the Babylonian exile, 14 g's from the exile to Jesus.) This smacks of numerology. And as Steve Wells put it, "[SIZE=-1]There are 28 generations listed from David to Jesus in Matthew's genealogy, while Luke's (3:23-31) has 43. Except for David at one end and Jesus at the other, only three names in the two lists [are] the same."[/SIZE]

In what way is Jesus descended from David given that per Jewish law lineage is traced through the father, not the mother, and given that Joseph provided no genetic material to Jesus?

If another religion's sacred text required this much 'squaring the circle' to explain an apparent anomaly, would you then declare that sacred text to also be inerrant and without contradiction?

Even if Jesus well and truly was descended from David, what difference does it make? "It makes him a Messianic candidate," we're told, but that's only relevant to the Jewish people. The concept of the Messiah was itself an ad-hoc explanation for two seemingly irreconcilable ideas:

A) David was promised that his family line would rule in Israel forever.
B) Israel was wiped out by Babylon.

Thus, like the "Wandering Jew" myth, the notion of the Messiah was invented whole-cloth in order to provide exiled Jews hope that the original promise would someday be maintained. And even assuming that hope was reasonable, Jesus didn't restore the throne of Israel and rule as a descendant of David, so he's not the Messiah, something that Jews (who by rights truly ought to know this stuff better than anyone) have been telling everyone for two thousand years.

 

[whollygoats]

Oh, Four Cheeses Crepes....

By the silly-ass reckoning of the Bible, if you take either of the mismatched lineages, you get quite a number of generations. Then, if you accept that David, as portrayed in the Hebrew Bible, or his son, Solomon, and consider the number one recurring problem they had....wives. Too damned many of them. And too many of those foreign unbelievers. Solomon was taught to have had hundreds of wives and concubines. Each generation of such privileged entities would have created multiple new progenitors in each subsequent generation. So, even at the starting generation there were many multiples of possible descendants. Now, multiply that by one of the numbers of generation lists and you'll realize that not only EVERY Hebrew in Judea in the first century could probably rightfully claim to be a descendant of David....along with a decent proportion of all of the non-Jewish population for some distance from where David was casting his seed. Do the math.

So...Yeah, big whoop on the Davidic line bullshit.

I assume that somebody here has already figured out that we now know about what happened, and what was said, at the critical junctures of the passion narrative, because the whole thing was written as midrash on the tales from the Hebrew teachings. It is a retelling of earlier tales and the writer of the earliest version of the tale wrote it in omniscient narrator mode. It is a holy tale; a teaching tool. A fabrication.

 

[bilby]

I see the original accusation of a "two dads" contradiction has given way to a much more diluted argument over whether Jesus is of the House of David.

Mary was descended from David.
Joseph was descended from David.
Heli was descended from David.
Jacob was descended from David.
Where is the problem?

The problem is that your assertion remains false even if people are bored with discussing it. There wasn't an 'accusation' of a contradiction; nor was there an 'alleged' contradiction. There is a contradiction.

That there are dozens of other problems doesn't make that contradiction any less contradictory, nor does it make it less obvious. It's right there where we can all see it.

And yet you are not man enough to apologise or to retract your demonstrably false claim.

Falsehood doesn't become truth because people stop discussing it.

 

[Learner]

What was Joseph's father's name?

Why did Matthew assert twenty-eight generations between David and Jesus when Luke lists forty-three? A cursory reading of Matthew's genealogy would suggest that Matthew sliced-and-diced some generations in order to make the numbers neatly line up (14 g's from Abraham to David, 14 g's from David to the Babylonian exile, 14 g's from the exile to Jesus.) This smacks of numerology. And as Steve Wells put it, "[SIZE=-1]There are 28 generations listed from David to Jesus in Matthew's genealogy, while Luke's (3:23-31) has 43. Except for David at one end and Jesus at the other, only three names in the two lists [are] the same."[/SIZE]

Can't comment yet on the numerology bit which requires reading up. (If I had the time)
But I don't think this unusual as exampled from the lineage of quite a few people today :Husband and wife sharng a common ancestor. Or having more than two lineages via four grandparents etc.

In what way is Jesus descended from David given that per Jewish law lineage is traced through the father, not the mother, and given that Joseph provided no genetic material to Jesus?

The clue would therefore be "seed" which is clearly different from the non-biological custom of "Jewish law" . Through the mother "genetically" which begs the question: Why at all, have the whole concept narrative that ; Jesus is the begotten Son of God and not Joseph yet there is the importance of the "seed" of David?

If another religion's sacred text required this much 'squaring the circle' to explain an apparent anomaly, would you then declare that sacred text to also be inerrant and without contradiction?

Even if Jesus well and truly was descended from David, what difference does it make? "It makes him a Messianic candidate," we're told, but that's only relevant to the Jewish people. The concept of the Messiah was itself an ad-hoc explanation for two seemingly irreconcilable ideas:

A) David was promised that his family line would rule in Israel forever.
B) Israel was wiped out by Babylon.

And is there an Israel today ? The Babylonians were exiled which also was prophesied by Jeremiah.

Thus, like the "Wandering Jew" myth, the notion of the Messiah was invented whole-cloth in order to provide exiled Jews hope that the original promise would someday be maintained. And even assuming that hope was reasonable, Jesus didn't restore the throne of Israel and rule as a descendant of David, so he's not the Messiah, something that Jews (who by rights truly ought to know this stuff better than anyone) have been telling everyone for two thousand years.

Know their stuff indeed but varied amongst the competing Jewish sects. Priests /Maccabees/ Pharisees / Rabbis etc..
But is it not possible to "yet happen"? No precised dates IOW.


The Jews problem, addapting laws (not Christians):

So if Jesus is not the Son of God; then He is the son of Joseph making Him heir. If He is not the son of Joseph; then He is the Son of God.

One or the other or even If neither were His fathers (for arguments sake- besides my opinion) then Jewish law no matter how one changes them, still favours Jesus (in Gods mysterious way ) for example to be "Jewish" ; The inheritance or genetically in Jewish law TODAY, as I undertsand, has to be through the mother!

 

[Lion IRC]

I see the original accusation of a "two dads" contradiction has given way to a much more diluted argument over whether Jesus is of the House of David.

Mary was descended from David.
Joseph was descended from David.
Heli was descended from David.
Jacob was descended from David.
Where is the problem?

The problem is that your assertion remains false even if people are bored with discussing it. There wasn't an 'accusation' of a contradiction; nor was there an 'alleged' contradiction. There is a contradiction.

That there are dozens of other problems doesn't make that contradiction any less contradictory, nor does it make it less obvious. It's right there where we can all see it.

And yet you are not man enough to apologise or to retract your demonstrably false claim.

Falsehood doesn't become truth because people stop discussing it.

So when the adopted/surrogate child of two gay men calls both of the Dad, that's a contradiction?
A lie?

@James Brown
Show me the scripture which says descendants must come solely from the paternal side and for bonus points show me where it says House of David cannot include son in laws.

 

[bilby]

I see the original accusation of a "two dads" contradiction has given way to a much more diluted argument over whether Jesus is of the House of David.

Mary was descended from David.
Joseph was descended from David.
Heli was descended from David.
Jacob was descended from David.
Where is the problem?

The problem is that your assertion remains false even if people are bored with discussing it. There wasn't an 'accusation' of a contradiction; nor was there an 'alleged' contradiction. There is a contradiction.

That there are dozens of other problems doesn't make that contradiction any less contradictory, nor does it make it less obvious. It's right there where we can all see it.

And yet you are not man enough to apologise or to retract your demonstrably false claim.

Falsehood doesn't become truth because people stop discussing it.

So when the adopted/surrogate child of two gay men calls both of the Dad, that's a contradiction?
A lie?

No; When a text says that two different men were the same person's father that's a contradiction.

And when you start making up shit that barely flies with 21st century attitudes towards family, and trying to apply it to alleged 1st century events, in an attempt to paper over the obvious contradiction, that's pretty damn close to a lie.

You are surely not seriously trying to suggest that Joseph had two "fathers" who were openly homosexual? Or that Joseph was the world's first surrogate baby, some 2000 years before 'baby M' was born in 1986? Or even that Joseph was adopted? That would be just making up desperate and stupid shit, to try to avoid admitting that your earlier assertion was false. It flies in the face of everything we know about the historical period in question, and makes a further mockery of the whole story - Why do you bother, when the only person you might even possibly be fooling is yourself?

Oh, yes; Because religion is absurd, and makes people do (and say) absurd things.

At least you are only rationalizing an unjustifiable falsehood, and not murder or genocide. I suppose that's an improvement on the old-style Christianity (which would have seen you burned at the stake for so much as hinting at any homosexuality in Joseph's bloodline).

 

[James Brown]

So when the adopted/surrogate child of two gay men calls both of the Dad, that's a contradiction?
A lie?

Is it your position that Joseph was the adopted son of two gay men?

@James Brown
Show me the scripture which says descendants must come solely from the paternal side and for bonus points show me where it says House of David cannot include son in laws.

I never said 'solely'.

But rather than research Hebrew descendancy laws, I'll concede that there is indeed no scripture claiming that Mary can't be considered a descendant of David. Fine.

Of course, if we're going to reward 'bonus points' for concepts that aren't in the Bible, then I guess we'll have to stop talking about...

Trinity
Rapture
Second Coming
Original Sin
Omniscience
Omnipresence
Supernatural
Transcendence
Afterlife
Deity
Divinity
Theology
Monotheism
Missionary
Immaculate Conception
Christmas
Christianity
Evangelical
Fundamentalist
Methodist
Catholic
Pope
Cardinal
Catechism
Purgatory
Penance
Transubstantiation
Excommunication
Dogma
Chastity
Unpardonable Sin
Infallibility
Inerrancy
Incarnation
Epiphany
Sermon
Eucharist
the Lord's Prayer
Good Friday
Doubting Thomas
Advent
Sunday School
Dead Sea
Golden Rule
Moral
Morality
Ethics
Patriotism
Education
Atheism
Apostasy
Conservative (Liberal is in)
Capital Punishment
Monogamy
Abortion
Pornography
Homosexual
Lesbian
Fairness
Logic
Republic
Democracy
Capitalism
Funeral
Decalogue
or Bible

 

[Lion IRC]

So when the adopted/surrogate child of two gay men calls both of the Dad, that's a contradiction?
A lie?

Is it your position that Joseph was the adopted son of two gay men?

*facepalm*
I thought someone would go there. But not you.

...I never said 'solely'.

But rather than research Hebrew descendancy laws, I'll concede that there is indeed no scripture claiming that Mary can't be considered a descendant of David. Fine.

Hey, it's a debate about strict literal contradictions not historical likelihood.
I'll grant some wiggle room to folks (like you) who admit that the bible doesn't strictly say paternal descent or biological dad. But I won't allow asymmetric rules of engagement for the bible errancy crowd who quibble over the sort of stuff you see at Iron Chariots or Skeptics Annotated Bible.

Of course, if we're going to reward 'bonus points' for concepts that aren't in the Bible, then I guess we'll have to stop talking about...

Trinity
Rapture
Second Coming
Original Sin
Omniscience
Omnipresence
Supernatural
Transcendence
Afterlife
Deity
Divinity
Theology
Monotheism
Missionary
Immaculate Conception
Christmas
Christianity
Evangelical
Fundamentalist
Methodist
Catholic
Pope
Cardinal
Catechism
Purgatory
Penance
Transubstantiation
Excommunication
Dogma
Chastity
Unpardonable Sin
Infallibility
Inerrancy
Incarnation
Epiphany
Sermon
Eucharist
the Lord's Prayer
Good Friday
Doubting Thomas
Advent
Sunday School
Dead Sea
Golden Rule
Moral
Morality
Ethics
Patriotism
Education
Atheism
Apostasy
Conservative (Liberal is in)
Capital Punishment
Monogamy
Abortion
Pornography
Homosexual
Lesbian
Fairness
Logic
Republic
Democracy
Capitalism
Funeral
Decalogue
or Bible

Touché
But you prove a useful point about how the exact same ambiguity that bible skeptics exploit to claim there's an alleged 'contradiction' can just as easily be used (by me) to harmonise the texts.