Changes

:This is not a problem as it is far more appropriate to say that the Bible is only intended to be literarily true, as many of the comments below elaborate upon.  Be careful; the Bible has withstood the test of scholarship for milenia and you are putting your scholarship (or lack thereof) on display.  [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 09:32, 02 January 2008 (EST)

:This is not a problem as it is far more appropriate to say that the Bible is only intended to be literarily true, as many of the comments below elaborate upon.  Be careful; the Bible has withstood the test of scholarship for milenia and you are putting your scholarship (or lack thereof) on display.  [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 09:32, 02 January 2008 (EST)

Matthew and Luke give two different liniages. Matthew gave Joseph's, and Luke is giving Mary's. As such, Mary is also a descendant of David, and thus Jesus could still be born of a virgin and be the Messiah of David's lineage. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] March 3 2008

Matthew and Luke give two different liniages. Matthew gave Joseph's, and Luke is giving Mary's. As such, Mary is also a descendant of David, and thus Jesus could still be born of a virgin and be the Messiah of David's lineage.[[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] March 3 2008  

:Firstly, if one is of Joseph and the other of Mary, why are there 41 generations between David and Joseph and only 27 between David and Mary?  I know a generation isn't a fixed period of time, but still, it's unbelievably impractical to believe that Mary and Joseph could be anywhere near the same age.  By rights, Mary should be several hundred years older than Joseph if you believe that both geneologies are the literal truth.  Also, it doesn't say anywhere that Luke is describing the geneology of Mary - in fact, in Luke 3:23, he says "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," and continues from there, which shows that Luke is describing the geneology of Joseph.  And finally, Jesus was not the son of Joseph, He was the son of God.  What you're doing there is taking two pieces of evidence, realising that they don't fit together, and making up a third piece to try and cover it, and that's how atheists get you.  You have to remember that the Gospels were written by imperfect human beings, not God, and that's why they tell two different tales.  It's likely that some elements from both are true, but neither is the literal truth, and they certainly can't both be the literal truth.  [[User:JohnR28|JohnR28]] 15:02, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:Firstly, if one is of Joseph and the other of Mary, why are there 41 generations between David and Joseph and only 27 between David and Mary?  I know a generation isn't a fixed period of time, but still, it's unbelievably impractical to believe that Mary and Joseph could be anywhere near the same age.  By rights, Mary should be several hundred years older than Joseph if you believe that both geneologies are the literal truth.  Also, it doesn't say anywhere that Luke is describing the geneology of Mary - in fact, in Luke 3:23, he says "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," and continues from there, which shows that Luke is describing the geneology of Joseph.  And finally, Jesus was not the son of Joseph, He was the son of God.  What you're doing there is taking two pieces of evidence, realising that they don't fit together, and making up a third piece to try and cover it, and that's how atheists get you.  You have to remember that the Gospels were written by imperfect human beings, not God, and that's why they tell two different tales.  It's likely that some elements from both are true, but neither is the literal truth, and they certainly can't both be the literal truth.  [[User:JohnR28|JohnR28]] 15:02, 27 December 2008 (EST)

::As the Scofield Reference Bible has noted, one is giving Jesus' Davidic line emphasizing His kingly heritage, and those focuses on kings and noble lineage. Some descendants are omitted it would seem to focus on the ruling line. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 17:21, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

::As the Scofield Reference Bible has noted, one is giving Jesus' Davidic line emphasizing His kingly heritage, and those focuses on kings and noble lineage. Some descendants are omitted it would seem to focus on the ruling line.  

 

 

 

::That's why in Matthew 1 you see more noble ancestors: David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Joram, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, etc. These were ruling ancestors showing the ruling line through David. Some which didn't rule were apparently omitted because the line's emphasis was on showing descent of rule, not all ancestors.  --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 17:21, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

==No discernment==

==No discernment==