ArchivedThe Bible is accurateDo you actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies? They do not admit that Luke's Gospel was for the geneology of Jospeh, they admit that it is a confusing matter and in that, they offer an explanation. However I am Catholic and I do not agree with that explanation, (Luke 3.23), the "as was supposed" verse and Luke's focus on Mary underlines for me and many others the fact that it is in fact Mary's geneology. To discuss this in full, we'd have to start a new topic, also, I went to the official catholic site, a sub-site I think, and it says in a nutshell that the confusion is only about how many possibilities there are as to how one should read and interpret the geneologies, the end result is the same. Just a note of interest, Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was, and Joseph was not the physical father of Jesus but he had to be regarded as his father for the sake of his genealogy as all Jews reckoned their genealogies through their fathers. Do you actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice? Not at all. They knew the cultural context and had no problem with it knowing that one was of Joseph and the other of Mary. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame