Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: The Genealogy of Jesus in the Bible Post Reply Post New Topic
Page  of 5 Next >>
Author Message
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2099
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Topic: The Genealogy of Jesus in the Bible
    Posted: 22 February 2014 at 9:03pm
In the newest article, I discuss the contradictory genealogies of Jesus as found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and why there is no way to reconcile the two.  An honest look at the genealogies will result in only one conclusion: they both cannot be right.  In fact, chances are that neither one is correct.

http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-genealogy-of-jesus-in-bible.html
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
Lachi
Male 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 18 February 2014
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 139
Quote Lachi Replybullet Posted: 24 February 2014 at 2:11pm
As you say, the early church knew of this contradiction and attempted to explain it away with Levirate marriages and son-by-inheritance scenarios.

Even the New Testament contains epistles attributed to Saint Paul (although most scholarship places the epistles in the mid 2nd Century AD)that might be aimed at detracting attention away from these genealogical impossibilities and discussions;

1st Epistle to Timothy, 1:3-7 -
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.

Epistle to Titus, 3:9-11 -
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

It is strange that such blatant contradiction found its way into the New Testament canon.
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2099
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 25 February 2014 at 8:36pm
Originally posted by Lachi

As you say, the early church knew of this contradiction and attempted to explain it away with Levirate marriages and son-by-inheritance scenarios.

Even the New Testament contains epistles attributed to Saint Paul (although most scholarship places the epistles in the mid 2nd Century AD)that might be aimed at detracting attention away from these genealogical impossibilities and discussions;

1st Epistle to Timothy, 1:3-7 -
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.

Epistle to Titus, 3:9-11 -
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

It is strange that such blatant contradiction found its way into the New Testament canon.


Good point.  Also remember that the gospels were written at different times and for different audiences.  Scholars agree that the Gospel of Matthew was written for a Jewish audience whereas the Gospel of Luke was written for a Gentile audience.  They were written independently of each and for different reasons.  Luke used Matthew as one of his sources and he changed whatever he felt needed to be changed.  That is why the genealogies contradict each other.  Later Christians then had to make excuses for the contradictions. 
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
Lachi
Male 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 18 February 2014
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 139
Quote Lachi Replybullet Posted: 17 March 2014 at 6:03pm
There is evidence that many early Christians believed that Jesus was the son of normal parents, and the consistently early Hebrew belief is that Jesus was illegitimate.

So what do the genealogies say?
Matthew has "Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16).
Luke has "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli" (Luke 3:23)

Read that again - Joseph the husband of Mary, and Joseph the man believed to be Jesus' father. So two Josephs - Mary's husband and Mary's lover. Both descended from King David, but through different lines.

Could both accounts, therefore, be true?
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2099
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 19 March 2014 at 8:20pm
Originally posted by Lachi

There is evidence that many early Christians believed that Jesus was the son of normal parents, and the consistently early Hebrew belief is that Jesus was illegitimate.

So what do the genealogies say?
Matthew has "Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16).
Luke has "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli" (Luke 3:23)

Read that again - Joseph the husband of Mary, and Joseph the man believed to be Jesus' father. So two Josephs - Mary's husband and Mary's lover. Both descended from King David, but through different lines.

Could both accounts, therefore, be true?


This is simply speculation.  It's no different than when some Christians speculate that one genealogy is Joseph's while the other is Mary's.  There is no proof.  The simplest explanation is that were taken from contradictory sources which is why they contradict each other.  I don't think Luke would have wanted to suggest that the "son of God" was the product of an affair.  The problem is that people keep trying to reconcile the genealogies when there is no reason to do so.   

More importantly, throwing accusations against chaste women is a big deal.  If Mary had indeed committed adultery (astagfirAllah), she would have been stoned to death by a mob. 
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
Lachi
Male 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 18 February 2014
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 139
Quote Lachi Replybullet Posted: 20 March 2014 at 6:14pm
Because we can not ask the gospel authors themselves about these genealogies, then everything we say about them is just speculation.

It is noticeable that the genealogy in Luke (edit: Matthew) contains five women (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba and Mary). It fails to mention many other women whose names are known from the Bible to be within this genealogical line (Eve, Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, Naamah, Maacah, etc), so why mention just these five? These five have something in common = Tamar played the prostitute and Judah found her attractive and they slept together, Rahab worked as a prostitute and slept with men not her husband, Ruth made herself attractive to a man not her legal husband/betrothed in order to marry him, and Bathsheba was the wife of Uriah when David desired her and slept with her. Mary is seen to fit into this group - she was attractive to a man not her husband and was (unlike Sarah with the Pharaoh and Abimelech) willing to have sex with them.

Jewish tradition from the earliest time makes Jesus the son of Mary by a man who was not her husband/betrothed, although the tradition is that he slept with her through deception, which exonerates Mary from any complicity.

Mary, if convicted of adultery, might well have been condemned to be stoned, but that does not mean the sentence would have been carried out. Jesus himself saved a woman so condemned without too much opposition from the Jewish crowd.   

Edited by Lachi - 21 March 2014 at 9:23am
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2099
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 20 March 2014 at 8:57pm
Originally posted by Lachi

Because we can not ask the gospel authors themselves about these genealogies, then everything we say about them is just speculation.

It is noticeable that the genealogy in Luke contains five women (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba and Mary). It fails to mention many other women whose names are known from the Bible to be within this genealogical line (Eve, Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, Naamah, Maacah, etc), so why mention just these five? These five have something in common = Tamar played the prostitute and Judah found her attractive and they slept together, Rahab worked as a prostitute and slept with men not her husband, Ruth made herself attractive to a man not her legal husband/betrothed in order to marry him, and Bathsheba was the wife of Uriah when David desired her and slept with her. Mary is seen to fit into this group - she was attractive to a man not her husband and was (unlike Sarah with the Pharaoh and Abimelech) willing to have sex with them.

Jewish tradition from the earliest time makes Jesus the son of Mary by a man who was not her husband/betrothed, although the tradition is that he slept with her through deception, which exonerates Mary from any complicity.

Mary, if convicted of adultery, might well have been condemned to be stoned, but that does not mean the sentence would have been carried out. Jesus himself saved a woman so condemned without too much opposition from the Jewish crowd.   


First of all, it is Matthew's genealogy that mentions the women, not Luke's.  Your theory simply does not work. 

Like I said, in order to reconcile what are obviously contradictory genealogies, you can nothing more than speculate.  On the other hand, when you accept that they are different because the authors were relying on different sources and had not in any way colluded with each other, the discrepancies become easy to explain.  Apologists go to great lengths to reconcile Matthew and Luke, yet in almost 2,000 years, there has not been a satisfactory explanation.  Perhaps the reason is that there is no explanation.  They are simply contradictory genealogies and nothing more.
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
Lachi
Male 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 18 February 2014
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 139
Quote Lachi Replybullet Posted: 21 March 2014 at 9:46am
Originally posted by islamispeace

First of all, it is Matthew's genealogy that mentions the women, not Luke's. Your theory simply does not work. Like I said, in order to reconcile what are obviously contradictory genealogies, you can nothing more than speculate. On the other hand, when you accept that they are different because the authors were relying on different sources and had not in any way colluded with each other, the discrepancies become easy to explain. Apologists go to great lengths to reconcile Matthew and Luke, yet in almost 2,000 years, there has not been a satisfactory explanation. Perhaps the reason is that there is no explanation. They are simply contradictory genealogies and nothing more.


My mistake on Luke/Matthew. Thank you for correcting me.

Why does my theory not work? The only explanation you give for why it doesn't is that you say so. That is not a reason, only an excuse for not having an answer.

That the genealogies are for two men called Joseph would explain why the gospel writers used different sources and provided different lines of decent. It also doesn't involve altering what the gospel writers actually put (as other theories do). Matthew has Joseph son of Jacob as the husband of Mary who was the mother of Jesus. Luke has Joseph the son of Heli as the man said to be the father of Jesus. Almost all traditions hold that Jesus was not the son of Joseph the husband of Mary (as Matthew implies). So therefore Luke is providing the genealogy of the other Joseph, the man claimed to be the 'real' father of Jesus.

It is indeed speculation. But speculation based upon what is actually written. Not speculation based on assumptions . You assume the two lines must be for a single person called Joseph, which then means the genealogies contradict each other, which aids in criticizing the reliability of the gospel accounts. However the two genealogies are for two different men called Joseph; that is why the genealogies are different and why they are identified as having different relationships to Jesus (Matthew - the husband of Jesus' mother; Luke - the reputed father of Jesus).


Edited by Lachi - 21 March 2014 at 9:48am
IP IP Logged
Page  of 5 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com