Luke and Matthews geneologies

quote:

---

Originally posted by shilohproject:
As this is my first posting/response, please forgive me if I am not up to speed on all the right protocals.

​

This topic of geneology "contradictions" is one (of many) which has led me to ask myself one simple question: does the Bible mean what it says, and say what it means?

​

The many explainations for the differances in the Matthew and Luke geneologies seem awfully conveluted to me, and based on no real information other than "it just has to be that way." And, while they may in fact be exactly right, it is clear that the text is obviously not harmonious internally.

​

The actual words of our translations clearly say that both geneologies are of Joseph. That's what they obviously state. If so much explaination is needed to clean up the problem for the average reader, how does the literalist claim the Bible to be a clear statement of truth which needs no tinkering from man, interpretation or re-evaluation of our understanding of it's purpose and meaning for us?

​

I greatly honor scripture for what it teaches me of the Lord, my need for His grace.

---

Hi there! The solution I have proposed is not convoluted. All it requires is that ONE WORD, that being the Aramaic word "gowra" should be translated FATHER instead of HUSBAND.
Because this word has been mistranslated into english ALL the problems occur.
The word "gowra" is used throughout the Aramaic of Matthew in the sense of a FATHER

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by judge:
Hi John...I think you will from my original post that one geneology is that of Mary (Matthews) and one is that of Joseph the "step" father of Jesus.

---

​

Your assertion is unsupported. And I think you will find, unsupportable. But please try.

​

quote:

---

As Matthew gives Marys geneology, Jesus was a direct blood descendent of David, thus fulfillinhg the prophesies.

---

​

Niether Matthew nor Mark give a valid messianic bloodline. In the end, this is the killer and this conclusion has yet to be challenged.

​

---

Hi John, iconoclast has suggested elsewhere i may have left this hanging and not responded.
I will therefore repeat my explanation.
1. The messiah had to be a descendent of David.
2.mary was a descendent of David, as explained in Matthews geneology ,which is Mary's geneology not Josephs
3. jesus was Mary's son.
4. Therefore Jesus fulfilled the prophecy.All the other stuff is irrelevant!All the best

Iconoclast says:
1. The messiah had to be a descendent of David.Through Solomon.Judge:
Iconoclast....please ...re-read my first post (pretty please).
Matthews geneolgy is that of mary.
Mary is therefore descended from Solomon .Please see Matthew 1:6-7Iconoclsat says:first women can't provide lineageJudge replies:
Who cares? The requirement is that the messiah be a descendent of David, thats all.
Guess what? Jesus is a priest too, but he was not of the tribe of Levi. Read the epistle to the Hebrews for an explanation.
.
Iconoclast says:
second there is no evidence this is Mary's lineage.Judge:
Please re-read the first postIconoclast says:
If Mary was of the tribe of david why did she perform task in the temple? That was the job of the levites! Her cousin Elizabeth was a levite as was her uncle! What does this mean? This means the BROTHER of her uncle was also a levite!Judge:
Can you elaborate here?
And what is the tribe of david?
The twelve tribes were the sons of Jacob. David was not a son of Jacob.All the best.

judge:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you sure you want to stand behind this statement John?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------John:
Certainly, until proven wrong...Judge:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inscriptions dating to the year 6A.D have been found using the estrangelo script (which the Peshitta is written in).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------John:
Please cite a source for those inscriptions. What I have found contradicts your statement.here is a link to a picture of the inscription in question.Peshitta Forum - Oldest Estrangela Inscription II