Bible Contradiction: Who was Jesus' paternal grandfather?

Post Reply New Topic

I have no clue. thats what some other guy said about bible contradictions however. that they were mistranslations

So what i dont understand is why you would believe in something is what you are taught isnt exactly the things meaning that is written down

Well, if going by only exactly there's a lot of errors of interpretation one could get from just about any writing. All atomic particles seek to have eight electrons in their valence, for example. There's another error between the genealogies of Chronicles and of Genesis in which the names of two patriarchs have their first letters swapped essentially. In Genesis one has a "D" and the other has an "R" and in Chronicles these are reversed. It's a scribal error and it makes sense when one realizes how similar the letters of phonetic values "D" and "R" appear for them to be mistaken for one another. That's an example of an actual error. The discrepancies between the genealogical lists of Matthew and Luke, however, are far too many to be unnoticeable by anyone at the time who had read both. I think that the explanation of one list being of Joseph's condensed patriarchal format lineage and the other being of Mary's (more comprehensive?) patriarchal format linage is a better explanation than assuming that they're both the same lists and pointing at all the differences claiming them errata.

Jesus paternal grandfather was God the Father's Father.

next question?

ruveyn

It's also possible that the compilers simply didnt know which version was correct and included both. If they believed they were inspired accounts, they may not have been able to choose.

There are certainly plenty of contradictions in the bible. I don't know why they would focus on one in particular.

Oh yeah, I thought uhm... jesus wasnt human? so why then would he have a family line

God and human both. Natural maternal line, adoptive paternal line, in a culture where genealogy and tribal affiliation meant everything.

Obviously, I knew the answer already. If god needed to become human, (because he planned it already and LOVED us so much Lol) He certainly could do that one.

Clearly though, if anything this not only shows the stubborness of god, (I guess somehow satan will be able to say, "haw haw I told you so?") de-throning the LORD, making SATAN god.

Well, I dont know about you but God is a little boring. the devil seems to have more fun
have you ever sinned? feels great man, Let me tell you.

A glance at history shows that obviously, it has not always been so obvious, and therefore the obvious thing to do was to define it in obvious terms so that it would in fact be obvious to you and I. But obviously there are always people who continue to miss the obvious (see: flat-earthers), so restating the obvious to someone denying the obvious is, equally obviously, not always a bad thing to do.

Last edited by Natty_Boh on 12 Feb 2011, 10:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I think back when both Matthew and Luke were written, nobody was aware of the discrepancies. It was only after they were both accepted as Scripture by the first Church did it become obvious and, also, too late to reject.

Which is probably part of the reason why Paul said the following:

1 Timothy 1:3-4
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies.

See you in heaven my brother, until then.

Actually, no. If you consider that within its immediate context as well as the context of Romans and Galatians the reason for this has nothing to do with the genealogies as listed in Matthew and Luke, but instead having to do with people trying to claim that they are genealogically Jewish as a way to claim more importance. Hence a statement such as Paul's,

Much of what is in the bible is allegory and has a context of the time and place is poorly translated often with bias and without a knowledge of the subversive nature of what he was doing and how he was showing one thing whilst doing another.

We all know that any text of this magnitude could be interpreted a number of ways and especially with many different writers giving accounts based on their own memory of a log gone event and with their own understanding.

Yet it is amazing that many believers of such a faith call it one way without a knowledge of the context and true nature and then affirm their positions by saying "it is in the bible and the bible is the word of God therefore i am right"

It you strip away the bible to the bare bones what you have is simply a very comprehensive social and moral handbook written by people based on a belief system dating at least to the Bronze Age and likely before. The key points in there?
Well this is a bit of a no-brainer. It simply comes down to be good people. Be a strong and moral community. Teach your children to be good. Do not do things that would hurt our community. That is it. Nothing more.

Good principle? No it is a brilliant one. Encouraging through stories, allegories, fear and hope and righteous conviction? Sure whatever works I guess. Sure has got many people hooked on the ways of interacting with the world and each other.

It has also meant that many people from time to time in the misguided belief of being good Christians have condemned Homosexuality, Have waged wars against non-believers and have burned people accused of being witches taken children of native people away from their parents to be raised properly and a good many other abhorrent things.

These people are not good or moral people nor the embodiment of the beliefs of Christ.



Jesus was a "Son of God" metaphorically speaking.
At what point did Satan dethrone God? Do you have reference to this? When is it supposed to have happened?
In which ways is God boring? When you speak about Satan what are you speaking about and what sins are you taking about?
I think that the genocidal, smiting God that lays waste to cities (Sodom and Gomorrah) and the world (The Great Flood) is hardly boring.
In fact not much of what you wrote here seems to make much sense

Welcome to yet another WP newbie.

As you say Iamnotaparakeet. Things that are said often have political and cultural significance that is lost in translation by a people who try to intellectualise a long written passage without the benefit of being there.

So what on Earth DID he mean?

Was it reference to these people are hanging on to some old irrelevant kooky customs that no longer fit in with mainstream teachings?

Does it mean that the Benjamanites were getting bolshie and wanting to flare up at an enemy on the basis of a common doctrine, and tolerance was seen as the order of the day?

Did it mean that there was a want to suppress a truth and that an executive decision to call it false for some reason hidden from us through the vagueness and passage of time?

Any of these could be a correct answer and you have no way of knowing. You could ask the writer except for the minor inconvenience of him being about two thousand years dead.

Simply put you really don't know and it is not your fault. No one can.

There IS a problem though.

Consider your road in religious faith and interpretation of the bible to be a road trip. You are driving along and suddenly there comes a vague direction. You have 3-6 possible alternatives. You choose one. Can you say with any certainty that 5 such possible choices later you have chosen them all correctly? No biggie, unless you righteously say that there is no way you got it wrong.

So. Iamnotaparakeet, how good are you at upholding your beliefs and are they in line with what the bible is trying to teach you?

Dude the reason people can get away with thinking/teaching the bible the way it is,

is because they say it comes from god. anytime you say something like that people are all ears.

So i agree. you need to look at the full context of anything and then you will be able to make a good decision. Wich is why i dont go to church

What's the point of the Bible if it's not to be taken literally by believers?

You may as well be a secular humanist with your moral beliefs.



According to the Bible, Jesus was THE Son of God ... not a son of God.