Jesus and the Number 14

michaelsherlock
michaelsherlock's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2012-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Jesus and the Number 14

Many people are aware that there exists a contradiction between “Luke’s” genealogy of Jesus and “Matthew’s”. Whilst “Matthew” records "42" generations from Jesus back to Abraham, (see "Matthew" 1:2-16 Vs “Luke” 3:23-38), “Luke” says there were 57 and many of these ancestors were different people. ("Luke" 3:23-38). Before getting to the contradiction which forms the basis of this Post, we should also be aware that “Luke’s” genealogy of Jesus is also in contradiction with 1 Chronicles 3:16-19 and "Matthew's" is also in contradiction with 1 Chronicles 3:9-15 (which lists 18 generations from David to Babylonian Exile, not 14 as "Matthew" errantly claimed).

At “Matthew” 1:17, the pseudonymous author asserts:

Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.

Now, if we were to take him/her at their word, that every 14 generations, some big event takes place which alters the course of the nation of Israel, we might be led to believe that there is some divine plan behind this nation’s history, but why every 14 generations? What is, or was, significant about the number 14?

It could be that the number 14 numerologically represents the doubling of the “holy” 7, which frequently occurs throughout both the OT and NT, not to mention more ancient “Pagan” religions and philosophies and forms the basis of the septenary (7 primary planets), from which we derive our days of the week.

In the words of Aristotle:

Since the number 7 neither generates nor is generated by any of the numbers in the decade, for this reason they also said that it was Athene. For the number 2 generates 4, 3 generates 9 and 6, 4 generates 8, and 5 generates 10, and 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 are generated, but 7 neither generates any number nor is generated from any; and so too Athene was motherless and ever virgin. (1)

Or, it could be something more relevant to Hebrew and the “history” of Israel. Looking to the Hebrew language, we may find a probable answer to this riddle. Hebrew is an alpha-numeric language, meaning that the letters double as numbers, each letter carrying a specific numeric equivalent or value.



1= 1 א ALEPH
2= 2 ב BETH
3= 3 ג GIMEL
4= 4 ד DALET
5= 5 ה HE
6= 6 ו VAV
7= 7 ז ZAYIN
8= 8 ח HET
9= 9 ט TET
10= 10 י YOD
11= 20 כ KAF
12= 30 ל LAMED
13= 40 מ MEM
14= 50 נ NUN
15= 60 ס SAMEKH
16= 70 ע AYIN
17= 80 פ PE
18= 90 צ TSADI
19= 100 ק QOF
20= 200 ר RESH
21= 300 ש SHIN
22= 400 ת TAV
(2)

Further, if we take two other factors into consideration, we may get a clearer picture of the intentions of the pseudonymous author of “Matthew.”

(1) Hebrew did not use vowels in its manuscripts, so to give you an example, the name for one of their tribal gods, Yahweh, who henotheisticially became the sole god, into which the others were incorporated, appears in the Hebrew texts as, YHWH, with the vowels (AEIOU) omitted.

(2) The second being that the messiah was supposed to be descended from the House of David. (see; Isaiah 9:5-7, Psalms 89:3-4, 132:11 Jeremiah 23:5-6) The name David, in the Hebrew texts appears without vowels as ‘DVD’ or Dalet, Vav, Dalet. If you consult the chart I have supplied above and add together the value of David’s name, you will see that Dalet has a value of 4 and Vav, 6, giving a total of 14.

The pseudonymous author of “Matthew,” who seems to have been the most traditional out of the other 2 synoptic authors and the more Gnostic/Hellenistic “John”, in some regards, may have been attempting to allude to the fact that Jesus was the thrice great (see Hermes Trismegistus for a comparison, re: thrice great and numerological significance of 3) David, the divinely appointed messiah (3) from the House of David (14), so he made Jesus’ birth come after 3 lots of 14 generations.
With regards to this possibility, nay probability, Professor of New Testament Studies, Bart D Ehrman, said:

Also, in ancient Hebrew no vowels were used. So the name David was spelled D-V-D. In Hebrew, the letter D (daleth) is the number 4 and the V (waw) is 6. If you add up the letters of David’s name, it equals 14. That may be why Matthew wanted there to be three groups of precisely fourteen generations in the genealogy of the son of David, the Messiah, Jesus.
Unfortunately, to make the numbers work he had to leave out some names. I might also point out that if Matthew was right in his fourteen-fourteen-fourteen schema, there would be forty-two names between Abraham and Jesus.(3)



Here is where we get to the error made by “Matthew”. Remember, in chapter 1 verse 17 he asserted, 3 generations of 14, now I will leave you with his own version of the genealogy of Jesus and see if you can spot the mistake:


1. Abraham begat
2. Isaac;
3. Jacob;
4. Judas
5. Phares and Zara
6. Esrom;
7. Aram;
8. Aminadab
9. Naasson
10. Salmon;
11. Booz
12. Obed
13. Jesse;
14. David the king

1. Solomon
2. Roboam
3. Abia
4. Asa;
5. Josaphat
6. Joram
7. Ozias;
8. Joatham
9. Achaz
10. Ezekias;
11. Manasses;
12. Amon
13. Josias
14. Jechonias

1. Salathiel
2. Zorobabel
3. Abiud
4. Eliakim
5. Azor
6. Sadoc
7. Achim
8. Eliud
9. Eleazar
10. Matthan
11. Jacob
12. Joseph
13. Jesus
Matthew 1:2-16


1. Jonathon Barnes & Gavin Lawrence. The Complete Works of Aristotle. Vol. 2. Fragments. Princeton University Press, (1984), Pg. 71.

2. http://www.smontagu.org/writings/HebrewNumbers.html

3. Bart D Ehrman. Jesus Interrupted. Harper Collins (2005) Pg. 38   

You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3205
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
The OT is one big mistakeThe

The OT is one big mistake

The NT is another big mistake based on the foundation of another big mistake

All religions are based on mistakes after mistake after mistake...

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


michaelsherlock
michaelsherlock's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2012-05-04
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:The OT

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The OT is one big mistake

The NT is another big mistake based on the foundation of another big mistake

All religions are based on mistakes after mistake after mistake...

 

 

 

I would not say "mistake," but I would say fraud.

You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Opie

Hi Opie,

Is this part of your 3 volume book? And you call yourself a reseacher? lol really? what?

This question was addressed 100 years ago and again in the 70's.

oi vey. I'm sure you won't be getting rich from your research/writings.

First of all, matthew is tracing his paternally through solomon. Luke is tracing his line maternally through Nathan, Solomon's brother.

Second, Matthew only reported back to abraham, luke to adam.

Third, begat vs. son of between luke and matthew is an important note.

I can keep going. Have you not heard of these things OPIE?

One more thing, the paternal and maternal come together in the intermarriage of Shealttel and Zerubbabal.

I could continue, but i think you get the point. You are using very old out of date arguments that have been refuted on several occasions.

If you're going to be a researcher, you need to actually research lol. Think, come up with new ideas.

If I were to grade you on this performance, i'm afraid you would fail miserably.

wow, lol,

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


michaelsherlock
michaelsherlock's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2012-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Nice try apologist, but your

Nice try apologist, but your argument is full of shit.  Both "Mathew" and "Luke" are tracing "Jesus'" geneaology from Joseph, and yes, "Luke" traces it back to Adam (for theological reasons, most likely) and "Matthew" to Abraham, '( again for theological reasons).  There is still a discrepecny here, or are all the most influencial scholars wrong?  Do some research before spouting off mindless Christian propaganda, or esle you may see yourself looking like a....I do not want to say Racca, but yes, a Racca!

You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Opie

Opie,

I'm more into polemics then apologetics, but apologetics is okay.

And i'm not defending anything. These are very old arguments. So if you go into an old antique store, and you find an old chair that is let's say from the 30's. I has dust on it and you need to check it to make sure it doesn't explode.

The same with your argument. It's a very old dusty argument that has been refuted over and over again forever ago.

If you would like to have a Bible study with me on this issue lol. I would love to educate you so that maybe someday, you could actually be a researcher.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


michaelsherlock
michaelsherlock's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2012-05-04
User is offlineOffline
ok Apologist.  Where in the

ok Apologist.  Where in the "Scripture does it say that this is the case?"  This is why I call you an apologist, because you are using a very weak apologetic "refutation" to substantiate your Christian claim.  Further, apologetic speculation is divided on this issue. 

 

Finally, you do not seem to be addressing the primary focus of this post.

You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
michaelsherlock wrote:ok

michaelsherlock wrote:

ok Apologist.  Where in the "Scripture does it say that this is the case?"  This is why I call you an apologist, because you are using a very weak apologetic "refutation" to substantiate your Christian claim.  Further, apologetic speculation is divided on this issue. 

 

Finally, you do not seem to be addressing the primary focus of this post.

It's just typical jean. Post a bunch of bs and claim victory, while the forum laughs.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hey Opie

Opie,

I had the burden, I beared my burden of the argument. Now the burden has switched back to you. You are now required to refute my rebuttal (which you can't) and then switch the burden back to me.

I have criticised your argument and all you did was whine. I think there's a number for that. it's a free number, 800 whaaa.

Now argue why don't you. You started it. If not, then you're as pathetic as the rest of them on here.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3661
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:I have

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I have criticised your argument and all you did was whine. I think there's a number for that. it's a free number, 800 whaaa.

Now argue why don't you. You started it. If not, then you're as pathetic as the rest of them on here.

 

                                 

                                                               Jean is angry.

http://theatheistconservative.com/

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
David to Jeebus

A picture is worth a thousand words. How could one list have 14 more generations and  the shorter list not have some omissions? the 14/14/14 is way to convenient.

Note the names in bold. That is the only place names match.

I have found the author of Matthew is a poor student. It is quite the flawed book, especially noteworthy when quoting the OT. 

 

If we say the book of Luke uses Mary's list,  Mary is not in the messianic lineage because she doesn't come from Solomon.  (see 2 Sam.7:12-13,1 Chron.17:11-14,22:10,28:4-7) and yet she ALONE shares DNA with Jesus. Matthew had to tack on Joseph to give some credence for his Jewish audience, but what need does Luke have to not directly name Mary instead of Joseph for his Gentile audience. "Mary's, the husband of Joseph, father was Heli" [fixed]. Writing decades after the event and to a wide audience a little clarity would be nice. Then also explain the Nathan DNA problem versus the prophecy of Solomon. I thought at least god's prophecies would be true. Lots of fail.

 

Also, talk about hillbilly incest.

Jesus was his own father. Jesus was the son of Mary and her father. Jesus was Joseph's son and father and he defiled his wife. 

 

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


michaelsherlock
michaelsherlock's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2012-05-04
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote: A picture

ex-minister wrote:

A picture is worth a thousand words. How could one list have 14 more generations and  the shorter list not have some omissions? the 14/14/14 is way to convenient.

Note the names in bold. That is the only place names match.

I have found the author of Matthew is a poor student. It is quite the flawed book, especially noteworthy when quoting the OT. 

 

If we say the book of Luke uses Mary's list,  Mary is not in the messianic lineage because she doesn't come from Solomon.  (see 2 Sam.7:12-13,1 Chron.17:11-14,22:10,28:4-7) and yet she ALONE shares DNA with Jesus. Matthew had to tack on Joseph to give some credence for his Jewish audience, but what need does Luke have to not directly name Mary instead of Joseph for his Gentile audience. "Mary's, the husband of Joseph, father was Heli" [fixed]. Writing decades after the event and to a wide audience a little clarity would be nice. Then also explain the Nathan DNA problem versus the prophecy of Solomon. I thought at least god's prophecies would be true. Lots of fail.

 

Also, talk about hillbilly incest.

Jesus was his own father. Jesus was the son of Mary and her father. Jesus was Joseph's son and father and he defiled his wife. 

 

 

 

 

You make a valid point with regards to the pseudonymous author of "Matthew" as he thought that Zecharia described the King riding two asses, missing the synonymous parallellism, thus adding to the mix a third ass, that being, himself!

You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL


michaelsherlock
michaelsherlock's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2012-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Opie,I'm

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Opie,

I'm more into polemics then apologetics, but apologetics is okay.

And i'm not defending anything. These are very old arguments. So if you go into an old antique store, and you find an old chair that is let's say from the 30's. I has dust on it and you need to check it to make sure it doesn't explode.

The same with your argument. It's a very old dusty argument that has been refuted over and over again forever ago.

If you would like to have a Bible study with me on this issue lol. I would love to educate you so that maybe someday, you could actually be a researcher.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

Ok Jean, the burden is on me now to show that my argument is not outdated and ultimately refuted.  So let us see what a modern New Testament scholar has to say with regards to the issues surrounding Jesus' confused and conflicting background.

 

Professor Bart D. Ehrman, in his popular book, 'Misquoting Jesus' said:

 

As we have seen, both Matthew and Luke want to insist that Jesus’ mother was a virgin: she conceived not by having sex with Joseph but by the Holy Spirit. Joseph is not Jesus’ father. But that creates an obvious problem. If Jesus is not a blood-relation to Joseph, why is it that Matthew and Luke trace Jesus’ bloodline precisely through Joseph? This is a question that neither author answers: both accounts give a genealogy that can’t be the genealogy of Jesus, since his only bloodline goes through Mary, yet neither author provides her genealogy. Apart from this general problem, there are several obvious differences between the genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Some of them are not discrepancies per se; they are just differences. For example, Matthew gives the genealogy at the very outset of his Gospel, in the opening verses; Luke gives his after the baptism of Jesus in chapter 3 (an odd place for a genealogy, since genealogies have to do with your birth, not your baptism as a thirty-year-old. But Luke may have had his reasons for locating it where he does). Matthew’s genealogy traces Joseph’s lineage back through King David, the ancestor of the Messiah, all the way to Abraham, the father of the Jews. Luke’s genealogy goes back well beyond that, tracing the line to Adam, father of the human race.


I have an aunt who is a genealogist, who is proud to have traced our family back to a passenger on the Mayflower. But here is a genealogy that goes back to Adam. As in Adam and Eve—the first humans. It’s an amazing genealogy. One might wonder why the two authors have different end points for their genealogies. Usually it is thought that Matthew, a Gospel concerned to show the Jewishness of Jesus, wants to emphasize Jesus’ relation to the greatest king of the Jews, David, and to the father of the Jews, Abraham. Luke, on the other hand, is concerned to show that Jesus is the savior of all people, Jew and gentile, as seen in Luke’s second volume, the book of Acts, where the gentiles are brought into the church. And so Luke shows that Jesus is related to all of us through Adam.

One other difference between the two genealogies is that Matthew starts at the beginning, with Abraham, and moves down generation by generation to Joseph; Luke goes the other direction, starting with Joseph and moving generation by generation back to Adam. These then are simply some of the differences between the two accounts. The real problem they pose, however, is that the two genealogies are actually different. The easiest way to see the difference is to ask the simple question, Who, in each genealogy, is Joseph’s father, patrilineal grandfather, and great-grandfather? In Matthew the family line goes from Joseph to Jacob to Matthan to Eleazar to Eliud and on into the past. In Luke it goes from Joseph to Heli to Mathat to Levi to Melchi. The lines become similar once we get all the way back to King David (although there are other problems, as we’ll see), but from David to Joseph, the lines are at odds. How does one solve this problem? One typical suggestion is to say that Matthew’s genealogy is of Joseph, since Matthew focuses on Joseph more in the birth narrative, and that Luke’s is of Mary, since she is the focus of his birth narrative. It is an attractive solution, but it has a fatal flaw. Luke explicitly indicates that the family line is that of Joseph, not Mary (Luke 1:23; also Matthew 1:16). There are other problems…

 Bart D. Ehrman. Misquoting Jesus.  Harper San Francisco  (2005) pp. 35-37.

 

There!  The burden is back on you.

You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Opie,

Is this part of your 3 volume book? And you call yourself a reseacher? lol really? what?

This question was addressed 100 years ago and again in the 70's.

oi vey. I'm sure you won't be getting rich from your research/writings.

First of all, matthew is tracing his paternally through solomon. Luke is tracing his line maternally through Nathan, Solomon's brother.

Second, Matthew only reported back to abraham, luke to adam.

Third, begat vs. son of between luke and matthew is an important note.

I can keep going. Have you not heard of these things OPIE?

One more thing, the paternal and maternal come together in the intermarriage of Shealttel and Zerubbabal.

I could continue, but i think you get the point. You are using very old out of date arguments that have been refuted on several occasions.

If you're going to be a researcher, you need to actually research lol. Think, come up with new ideas.

If I were to grade you on this performance, i'm afraid you would fail miserably.

wow, lol,

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

Hey Jean, help me out here (no sarcasm intended here)

I'm not disagreeing with you. I looked into this a long time ago.  It's not really that important, but I never got where it came together at Shealttel and his son Zerubabbel.  You say intermarriage? What supposedly went on there and the immediate gene pool before and after?  Puzzled

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Michael

Michael,

The problem we're having right now is that you suck at research. When I have an opponent, the very least that I try to do is understand my opponents position if at all possible more then he does (which is usually the case). This has been addressed on many many occasions.

This scholar guy who is under Metzger (I've read most of Metzger's works) is reacting emotionally to the text. I have studied textual criticism when i was 15 so I am aware of the science behind it.

also, you did not address any of my rebuttals but instead just distracted from the situation and threw ad hominem fallacies.

I will outline just a few points that have already on numerous times have been addressed.

1) The two genealogies do not contradict each other. For this to be they would have to have no possiblity for reconciliation and be antithetical in manner, way and relationship.

The issue of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. Matthew does not convey that mary and joe lived in betheleham before the birth of Christ. It's just statated the Jesus was born in bethlehem.

Luke is not saying that the angel told mary only and joseph was in the dark. But he assumed joseph already knew before the dreaem. This is infered since Joseph decided to divorce mary discreetly.

Matthew 1:1-16: genealogy of Jesus via Joseph who was through the line of King David via adoption.

Luke 3:23-28 geneaology of mary (vs. 23) Jesus not the biological son of joseph obviously Heli being Joseph's father in law.


"Therefore Jesus was descended from David naturally through Nathan and legally through Solomon"

1:16.

 

you created the logical fallacy of ad populum and the fallacy from authority.

you did not rebut my arguments against your original slop.

You did not RESEARCH the history of this so called "contradiction" to see what the opposing sides have to say about it. For example, Gleason Archor.

It's like saying that there is a "contradiction" with Judas' death because at one place it said he hung himself and yet in another place it says his guts splattered on the rocks.

you have failed miserably. You are an old woman with no shoe, poor, homeless, with nothing but echoes of stupid dust.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


michaelsherlock
michaelsherlock's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2012-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Michael,

The problem we're having right now is that you suck at research.

This seems like a rather emotional comment, the reason for which I can only assume, is that you are emotionally invested in your belief, which leads you to speak and act in ways dictated by the emotional drives inherent within the belief itself.  In other words, this is not you speaking but the belief/intoxicant.

When I have an opponent, the very least that I try to do is understand my opponents position if at all possible more then he does (which is usually the case). This has been addressed on many many occasions.

This self-aggrandizing speech seems to lend support to my supposition above.

This scholar guy who is under Metzger (I've read most of Metzger's works) is reacting emotionally to the text. I have studied textual criticism when i was 15 so I am aware of the science behind it.

 

Ehrman, AKA "this scholar guy" as you so eloquently put it, is one of the most competant NT scholars with regards to that science which you "studied" from the age of "15" and although such a fact does not equal truth per se, he is not the only renowned textual and historical scholar to hold this opinion.  What work of Metzger's have you read?  I have read almost everything I have been able to find of Metzger's so I would like to quiz you if that would be ok?

 

also, you did not address any of my rebuttals but instead just distracted from the situation and threw ad hominem fallacies.

 

You rebuttal was based on my outdated research, for which I supplied you with a reference to scholarship which is but a few years old.  So I am quite sure I addressed your rebuttal/personal attack.

 

I will outline just a few points that have already on numerous times have been addressed.

1) The two genealogies do not contradict each other. For this to be they would have to have no possiblity for reconciliation and be antithetical in manner, way and relationship.

This is the first time you have raised these somewhat dubious criteria for establishing whether or not a contradiction can be called as such.

 

"No Possibility of Reconcilliation"

 

This seems more like an apologetic criterion, than a scholarly one.  The reason I say this is that it is so so broad, that almost any contradiction can fall under this criterion and be unreasonably spared the label of contradiction.  When you use "possibility" as an aspect of an address to such a matter, the recviever must concede that anything is possible and thus, the contradictory verses, forming the basis of this discussion, can be cleverly elimated by the argument that; it is possible that extra information is missing which would reconcile these narratives.  Whilst I concede that such may be the case, we have to deal with what we have, and as it stands, the geneaologies are different, even though both claim to be describing Joseph's lineage, "Matthew" does say there are 3 lots of 14 generations, but only supplies 2 lots of 14 and one lot of 13.  This is what we have to work with. 

Further, according to the fourth limb of the dictionary definition (the limb relevent to the matter at hand) of the word "contradiction," a contradiction is present when there is:

4) direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contradiction

 

Thus, applying this definition to what we have, not what we wish we had, or want to have, there are contradictions between the narratives supplied by both "Matthew" and "Luke," (not to mention most of the other books of the bible, both OT and NT.) that satisfy not only the first limb of your criteria, but also the second one.  In other words the contradictions in the pages of these texts make them antithetical in way, manner and relationship.

 

The issue of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. Matthew does not convey that mary and joe lived in betheleham before the birth of Christ. It's just statated the Jesus was born in bethlehem.

This is true.  "Matthew" does not say that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem before Jesus' birth, nor does he/she say that they lived in Nazareth. On top of this, he/she describes Jesus' nativity as taking place in a "house," which has led many highly reputable bible scholars and historians (Daniel J. Harrington, Geza Vermes, E.P. Sanders, Ehrman) to deduce that the author believed Jesus' parents lived in Bethlehem prior to his nativity.  Furthermore, there is a contradiction regarding the events that followed his birth, with "Luke" saying that he went and got snipped in Jerusalem according to Jewish Law and "Matthew" saying that he was taken to Egypt.

Luke is not saying that the angel told mary only and joseph was in the dark. But he assumed joseph already knew before the dreaem. This is infered since Joseph decided to divorce mary discreetly.

What you have said here represents wishful speculation, not reasonable inference. There seems to also be a slight illogicality in the speculative argument presented above.  You argue that "Luke" assumed Joseph knew that his wife was impregnated with his god/god's son, which led him to want to divorce his wife.  Hah?  Think about that one for a while.

Matthew 1:1-16: genealogy of Jesus via Joseph who was through the line of King David via adoption.

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ, which was made of the seed [sperma] of David according to the flesh; and [only] declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness… (Romans 1:3,4 KJV)

 

 

you created the logical fallacy of ad populum and the fallacy from authority.

you did not rebut my arguments against your original slop.

I am quite sure I did.  Considering you merely attacked the "outdated" nature of my research.  "Original Slop," really?

 

You did not RESEARCH the history of this so called "contradiction" to see what the opposing sides have to say about it. For example, Gleason Archor.

I believe his name is Gleason Archer, not Archor.  What does he say?

 

It's like saying that there is a "contradiction" with Judas' death because at one place it said he hung himself and yet in another place it says his guts splattered on the rocks.

There isn't?  Do tell.

 

 

you have failed miserably. You are an old woman with no shoe, poor, homeless, with nothing but echoes of stupid dust.

You seem disturbed.  Are you ok on the inside_?  Not a sarcastic question.  I am being sincere.  If you would like to change the tone and nature of our discourse just let me know and I can say things that accord with your beliefs and put your mind at ease.

You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Manly P. hall

Michael,

Do you like Manly P. Hall? I can't believe you're quoting him. Are you part of the philosphical society of L.A?

Hall was an extremely high ranking Freemason and unbelievably high in the occult. To use him in a quote not only causes more questions on your "research" techniques and your philoshical worldview.

I've studied Manly P. Hall extensively. He admits to satanism indirectly in his book, "The lost keys of Freemasonry."

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Manly P. hall

Michael,

Do you like Manly P. Hall? I can't believe you're quoting him. Are you part of the philosphical society of L.A?

Hall was an extremely high ranking Freemason and unbelievably high in the occult. To use him in a quote not only causes more questions on your "research" techniques and your philoshical worldview.

I've studied Manly P. Hall extensively. He admits to satanism indirectly in his book, "The lost keys of Freemasonry."

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


michaelsherlock
michaelsherlock's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2012-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Michael,

Do you like Manly P. Hall? I can't believe you're quoting him. Are you part of the philosphical society of L.A?

Hall was an extremely high ranking Freemason and unbelievably high in the occult. To use him in a quote not only causes more questions on your "research" techniques and your philoshical worldview.

I've studied Manly P. Hall extensively. He admits to satanism indirectly in his book, "The lost keys of Freemasonry."

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

It is not a matter of like or dislike.  I have studied his works as well and I find some of it useful and some of it not.  I do not care what or who he was, just the information and ideas presented, and those I do not believe, but consider.

I am aware of his title as a 33rd degree Freemason and it does not bother me in the slightest. 

 

What is occult?  What is its true meaning?  Couldn't "Jesus" be deamed an occult teacher?

You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL