Changes

: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)

==No discernment==

==No discernment==