Why do the two genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke [apparently] disagree? If someone is declared to be the son of God, surely his credentials must be

[BANG KRISLAM]

Why do the two genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke [apparently]
disagree? If someone is declared to be the son of God, surely his
credentials must be
impeccable, mustn't they? Two variant genealogies [allegedly] cast suspicion
on the true origin of this man, don't they?
A: Jesus had both a biological mother, Mary, and a legal (but not
biological) father, Joseph. Matthew records Jesus' genealogy of "law" (i.e.
his adopted father, Joseph, and Luke records the genealogy of "nature", i.e.
biological genealogy of Mary. According to Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History
book 6 chapter 31, Julius Africanus, (200-245 A.D.) was one who reconciled
this alleged contradiction in his Letter to Aristides. For a longer
explanation, consult Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History Book 1 chapter 7 The
Complete Book of Bible Answers p.97-98, Bible Difficulties & Seeming
Contradictions p.170-171, and When Critics Ask p.385-386.

As for Jesus' credentials, you miss a key point here. In the Jews eyes Jesus
did NOT have impeccable credentials, but not due to genealogy. They thought
he was illegitimate, because they would not accept that He was born of a
virgin. Not only that, but who would imagine a King and Messiah being born
of such a poor family, in a stable of all things. Those who really wanted to
follow Jesus would do so because of Him and His message, not because it was
politically correct or popular.

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by BANG KRISLAM
Why do the two genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke [apparently]
disagree? If someone is declared to be the son of God, surely his
credentials must be
impeccable, mustn't they? Two variant genealogies [allegedly] cast suspicion
on the true origin of this man, don't they?
A: Jesus had both a biological mother, Mary, and a legal (but not
biological) father, Joseph. Matthew records Jesus' genealogy of "law" (i.e.
his adopted father, Joseph, and Luke records the genealogy of "nature", i.e.
biological genealogy of Mary.

Nope. Luke does not mention any father of Mary. It says Jesus son of
Joseph son of Heli. The parents of Mary are called Joachim and Anna in
Orthodox and Roman Catholic tradition, as per the Protovangelion of
James
http://www.bluefood.cc/sexjesus1.html

Post by BANG KRISLAM
According to Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History
book 6 chapter 31, Julius Africanus, (200-245 A.D.) was one who reconciled
this alleged contradiction in his Letter to Aristides. For a longer
explanation, consult Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History Book 1 chapter 7 The
Complete Book of Bible Answers p.97-98, Bible Difficulties & Seeming
Contradictions p.170-171, and When Critics Ask p.385-386.
As for Jesus' credentials, you miss a key point here. In the Jews eyes Jesus
did NOT have impeccable credentials, but not due to genealogy. They thought
he was illegitimate, because they would not accept that He was born of a
virgin.

To this day, people think that a child of an unmarried woman is
illegitimate rather than born of a virgin. In order for Jesus' fellow
Jews to have rejected a claim that Jesus' mother was virgin, they would
need to have heard such a claim. Who made such a claim during Jesus'
time? Did Jesus say that his mother was virgin? Do Pauline epistles
written within a 1/4 century say Jesus' mother was a virgin?

Post by BANG KRISLAM
Not only that, but who would imagine a King and Messiah being born
of such a poor family, in a stable of all things.

Why can't one imagine a king and messiah from a mean family? David was
a mere shepherd before he was messiah and king.

Post by BANG KRISLAM
Those who really wanted to
follow Jesus would do so because of Him and His message, not because it was
politically correct or popular.

... and did Jesus' message say that he was messiah and king?

[v***@yahoo.com]

I would like to add that Mohammed, the Final Islamic prophet, who
claimed to be both an Arab being from the tribe of Queish, and Hebrew
being the descendant of Ishmael had no genealogy in the Quran to
support Mohammed's claims as true !

Whereas, the Bible has genealogy to support all the prophets sent by
the True Allah.

Ironically, not even 1 of all the Quranic prophet was an ARAB !!!

Then again, One could only be an Arab or a Hebrew, but Mohammed, the
FINAL Islamic prophet, claimed to be to an Arab as well as a Hebrew.
Hence, Mohammed, was indeed a False prophet !!

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by v***@yahoo.com
I would like to add that Mohammed, the Final Islamic prophet, who
claimed to be both an Arab being from the tribe of Queish, and Hebrew
being the descendant of Ishmael had no genealogy in the Quran to
support Mohammed's claims as true !
Whereas, the Bible has genealogy to support all the prophets sent by
the True Allah.

Where is Moses' geneology? Samuel's? Why do true prophets need
geneologies? Does Allah insist on prophets with pedigrees? Why can't
someone with a geneology be a false prophet?

Post by v***@yahoo.com
Ironically, not even 1 of all the Quranic prophet was an ARAB !!!
Then again, One could only be an Arab or a Hebrew,

Ah, so? Which of these would the child of an Arab and a Hebrew be?
1) "only Arab"
2) "only Hebrew"

Post by v***@yahoo.com
but Mohammed, the
FINAL Islamic prophet, claimed to be to an Arab as well as a Hebrew.
Hence, Mohammed, was indeed a False prophet !!

[v***@yahoo.com]

I would like to add that Mohammed, the Final Islamic prophet, who
claimed to be both an Arab being from the tribe of Queish, and Hebrew
being the descendant of Ishmael had no genealogy in the Quran to
support Mohammed's claims as true !

Whereas, the Bible has genealogy to support all the prophets sent by
the True Allah.

Ironically, not even 1 of all the Quranic prophet was an ARAB !!!

Then again, One could only be an Arab or a Hebrew, but Mohammed, the
FINAL Islamic prophet, claimed to be to an Arab as well as a Hebrew.
Hence, Mohammed, was indeed a False prophet !!

[m***@yahoo.com]

JESUS IS COMING! LOOK BUSY!

Post by BANG KRISLAM
Why do the two genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke [apparently]
disagree? If someone is declared to be the son of God, surely his
credentials must be
impeccable, mustn't they? Two variant genealogies [allegedly] cast suspicion
on the true origin of this man, don't they?
A: Jesus had both a biological mother, Mary, and a legal (but not
biological) father, Joseph. Matthew records Jesus' genealogy of "law" (i.e.
his adopted father, Joseph, and Luke records the genealogy of "nature", i.e.
biological genealogy of Mary. According to Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History
book 6 chapter 31, Julius Africanus, (200-245 A.D.) was one who reconciled
this alleged contradiction in his Letter to Aristides. For a longer
explanation, consult Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History Book 1 chapter 7 The
Complete Book of Bible Answers p.97-98, Bible Difficulties & Seeming
Contradictions p.170-171, and When Critics Ask p.385-386.
As for Jesus' credentials, you miss a key point here. In the Jews eyes Jesus
did NOT have impeccable credentials, but not due to genealogy. They thought
he was illegitimate, because they would not accept that He was born of a
virgin. Not only that, but who would imagine a King and Messiah being born
of such a poor family, in a stable of all things. Those who really wanted to
follow Jesus would do so because of Him and His message, not because it was
politically correct or popular.