@@MarcillaSmith No. He does not assume that the Jesus of the gospels is historical. That is not the academic consensus. The academic consensus is that the Jesus of the gospels is based on a historical person that a sect of Judaism was built around that later became Christianity.
I can say from firsthand experience spending the first 32 years of my life in fundamentalist Christianity, that these explanations are accepted without question by most, if not all, fundamentalists. Dan is absolutely correct in that it's all about making those who already believe comfortable in their belief.
Even among Dan's vids, this one is exceptional. Dan so clearly and effectively articulates what apologetics is largely about - Rejecting _best_ evidence to favour _any_ evidence or hypothesis that allows for the possibility of your ideology remaining true. Apologetics is generally a desperate scramble to make Christianity possible, in an age of increasing scrutiny and reliance upon scientific and evidence based methodology. 'Just trust me bro' is still a preferred methodology for many, apologists in particular.
Not impossible. Or as Jim Carey said in Dumb and Dumber... " So you're telling me there's a chance" / Note: Edited cos I got the quote wrong. Good catch, @vic
Thanks for your brutal honesty Dan. It was apologists that deconverted me from Christianity, their endless lies made me question my faith, Atheists had no part in it.
I find it interesting that they try so hard to "harmonize" things like this. (See also lists of the 12 disciples.) In one of the letters of Timothy (whoever wrote those, not Paul) there's an explicit warning about "myths and genealogies" that ells me this has been going on for a long time.
Sez you. Someone with REAL critical thinking skills would realize that it is highly unlikely that there would be ANY genealogical records for lower class peasants and so the authors would have had to make something up.
I think Matthew has another problem in its genealogy, where Matthew tries to account for 42 generations but only lists 41. And you can kind of see this with the neatness of the divisions of 14, where for the first 2 you can see 14 generations but is only 13 in the last division.
Hey Dan, would love a video about dating the gospels in general. Love your work. Its inspired me to learn some ancient greek :) (by that i mean ive done a single lecture on the alphabet lol)
Well, _I_ find it very convincing, because if _I_ had to make up so many names there would be long stretches that go “Bob, son of Otherbob, son of Prebob, son of Preprebob, …”.
According to Church fathers who never met me and had no possible way to have access to my geneology, I'm directly descended from Spider-Man and Amaterasu no Okami, Japanese Goddess of the Sun and progenitor of the Japanese royal family. Also Adam, because *everyone* is supposed to be descended from Adam.
Wait a minute... Apologists often claim that one genealogy is Mary's and one is Joseph's. So if they diverge and come back together and diverge again... that means the whole family is inbred.
@@ratamacue0320 Exactly so. Based on an estimated population of England of 2 million in 1066 allowing 40 generations since then, the average Englishman is descended from William the Conqueror through roughly 500,000 lines of descent.
@@ratamacue0320 are they 10th cousins or are you just guessing? The man in the scenario is the same on both sides, so unless the women are different (which there's no reason to believe) it's incest.
Dan says the two genealogies are literary creations. Is that a legitimate way to talk about something? Does the use of literary creations in storytelling discredit the story? Is the story of Jesus and the value of the Gospels discredited unless the Gospels are strict factual accounts with no deviations. What does it mean for the creator to whom Dan is responding to twist himself into knots to assert that the genealogies have to reconcile? Suppose it means he's a fool who wants to force his own perspective onto the Gospels and doesn't care about understanding them. Is that possible? Yes. Is it plausible? Yes. It is plausible that it doesn't mean that? No. Is it possible? My opinion is no.
1:48 Nope, both are of Joseph's side even by the reckoning of the passages themselves. The only way these genealogies could also be of Mary's side is if she is also Joseph's biological sister which would make their relationship an incestuous one which is basically not allowed even back then.
It always seems to go over their heads that if you are trying to reconcile a contraction and even if successful it does not remove the contradiction - it just explains it. The contradiction is still there - "as is." Some of these apologists have more moves than Cirque du Solei.
In Bible College there was always some explanation for the contradictions that never really seemed to be legitimate. But we were taught to only believe. Otherwise, just plead stupidity and more on.
It's even probably true. Something like 30-40% of all Americans can trace descent from King John of England. But going back that far it's just a matter of mathematics. Your great-great times 10 grandparents and every generation between had so many siblings and cousins a lot of family trees are going to overlap eventually. It's just that the lineages of historical elites tend to be better attested.
This is not a contradiction! The Bible is perfectly clear and consistent: Joseph was raised by *two dads*, Jacob & Heli, who were obviously a loving gay couple. Now, it doesn't say that they were married, but I think it is blasphemous to suggest that the father of the Lord was raised outside of a marriage, so I think it's safe to assume that the Bible is providing us with is a wonderful example of a loving gay marriage.
If these “Christians” would spend as much time and effort on practicing the teachings of Jesus as they do on having to find ridiculous ways to convolute Scripture, the world might be better place. Thanks Dan for sharing your knowledge!
I recall an interesting argument from a Rabbi: If Jesus was born of a virgin, then he can’t be a descendant of David, as this was only passed on patriarchally in Judaism. The Messiah, according to him, must be a blood descendant of David. This, he proposed, makes it an open shut case.
Ah, the explanation I grew up with. And I do agree that the second speculation sounds ever so slightly more plausible than listing a different family line than the one you claim you're doing. For that one that Luke is giving Mary's genealogy I found it rather suspicious that no other examples of this in history were given when I no longer accepted these teachings as authoritative
Did you know there was a Jewish tradition of releasing criminals during Passover? The tradition was so entrench even a Roman governor kowtowed to it and released Jewish prisoners held by Romans. I'm sure all the ancient historians mentioned this incredible fact.
@emptyhand777 what has that got to do with the fact that the gospel genealogies of jesus are conflicting and the excuses given by Christer apologists are literally pulled out of their butt?
@@jaclo3112 - sarcasm, I was comparing wild Biblical claims that have no historical standing. If Pontius Pilate released a Roman prisoner like Barabbas, the Emperor would have had him removed.
@@emptyhand777 understood and totally agree. Just like the "tradition" of taking down the bodies from the cross. It wasn't a tradition. So much shite is made up in the bible.
I was taught that based on evidence in the text, Matthew's gospel followed line of succession to argue Jesus had right to the throne, deliberately left out generations to make it three lots of fourteen, and deliberately left in unsavoury characters such as Rahab. It's possible Luke's gospel follows (or attempted to follow, we don't know the veracity of his sources) biological descent.
“In the beginning of the composition, Nammu wakes up her son Enki to inform him that other gods are complaining about the heavy tasks assigned to them. As a solution, he suggests the creation of mankind, and instructs Nammu how to form men from clay with the help of Ninmah and her assistants (Ninimma, Shuzianna, Ninmada, Ninšar, Ninmug, Mumudu and Ninnigina according to Wilfred G. Lambert's translation). After the task is finished, Enki prepares a banquet for Nammu and Ninmah, which other deities, such as Anu, Enlil and the seven assistants, also attend.” So much for Adam. It is delusional to believe that Adam commences any lineage. It is a point of distinction that civilization begins with what Eridu built from mud and clay. The two gods mentioned above Enki and Nammu, the first of which is one of the oldest, if not oldest attested god. Both are gods of Eridu, Nammu known as the divine creator. “Eridu is one of the earliest settlements in the region, founded c. 5400 BC during the Early Ubaid period, at that time close to the Persian Gulf near the mouth of the Euphrates River though in modern times about 90 miles inland.” Level VII of the Eridu "temple", final Obaid period. “The archaeological significance of Eridu is also related to the deep stratigraphy of its principal mound (Abu Shahrein), explored in the 1940s by pioneering archaeologists Fuad Safar and Seton Lloyd, which revealed the oldest southern Mesopotamian temple.” And the oldest layers of the temple date to about 5000 BCE. Again, what is Eridu and how was Mesopotamia built. By men, in the beginning no copper, no bronze, no local sources of wood it was built from mud and reeds, fish and barely. It was Samara culture, up the Tigris, that breathed civilizing life into mud of Eridu. What is important to note here is this. The oldest biblical genealogy dates to a little shy of 4200 BCE, about the time of Uruk period. But Eridu predates that by 1300 years and has a temple to its primordial god Absu, whose, according to mythology grandaughter created man from clay under the instruction of Enki, the equivalent of Yahweh in many of his roles in Genesis. (and in my opinion actually Yalu of Beth Lahmi, a prototypically form of Yahweh). So what’s the point here. When anyone anywhere in the Bible gives an extended genealogy it’s a literary trick in order to bury the origin of their god, Enki was not a god when the E-absu was built (and Yahweh certainly wasn’t), into the foundations of civilization created by man. Reversing the roles of man and god. This is why Eridu is important. The Bible is conflating the time of the origin of Uruk, because of its central importance in early regional pantheons, with actual origin because Uruk is where writing takes off. But the early stories of creation come from Eridu and are probably prehistoric. The stories of Matthew and Luke are trying to anchor Jesus into lineages with authoritative claims. Nasra was probably a lookout for the city of Tzipori which dates back to the 8th century BCE. During the exile period Jews and other derivative Israelites probably lived here and gradually adopted palmayran and Hellenistic influences that grew in prominence. Any relation the people of Nasra had with the Jewish monarchy (if any) probably faded with time and Jesus stock almost certainly among those forced to convert by John Hyrcanus. We get to the point in the modern period where the profession of the biblical origin schema is more or less a socially acceptable form of delusion. It’s completely debunked, we know what humans were doing before 4200 BCE and we where the older versions of these stories and the gods of these stories come from.
How is it *possible* that one is the line of Mary if both explicitly say that they're talking about the father of Joseph? How is it *possible* that they're talking about brothers if they don't share the next generation back? I'm not convinced of even these possibilities.
Seriously, the likelihood of being able to trace lineage like that a couple thousand years ago is so absurd, it boggles the mind. It’s a lot easier now with DNA testing, but even 25-30 years ago, when my uncle was tracing our family history, it was incredibly difficult. Like - who would have even kept records like that 2 millennia ago? Where? Why haven’t we found any others?
As a Christian myself I must admit that Jeconiah even being mentioned in the lineage presents another huge problem that I have struggled to wrap my head around....this considering Jeremiah 22:28-30. If the author of Matthew, who seemed to be speaking to a primarily Jewish audience, is trying to display just how Jesus' lineage makes him eligible for kingship as a descendant of David, then they either must not have know about Jeconiah's curse (which doesn't seem plausible since they quite frequently quoted the Hebrew Bible), they didn't care, or they just reinterpreted it somehow to make Jesus still eligible. 🤷🏾♂️ Im curious to hear your thoughts on this Dan. 🤔
The story as we see it now. There's some evidence that the whole "born of a virgin" thing was a retcon to fulfill a prophecy that wasn't even about the Messiah but the Gospel authors thought made it a better story.
It means that the gospels authors didn’t think that Jesus was LITERALLY the son of god. As in the meme “if we are all god’s children what’s so special about Jesus?” 😅
It could be connected to the idea of a legal genealogy. Joseph is supposed to have been from the house of David, and that's the family line of the messiah
@@douglasphillips5870 Except that runs into the issue of basic math: David was 1000 years before. Over that length of time, literally _everyone_ in the region--probably the eastern Mediterranean basin--would have been a descendant of David.
Another prime example of data over dogma. Thanks, as always, Dan. This apologist is typical of the breed. Totally uninterested in truth and caring only for defending his beliefs with lies. Shameful, of course, but hardly surprising.
It is very common for apologists to explain differences between Matthew and Luke by saying that Matthew wrote from a Jewish perspective, while Luke's gospel was targeted at the Gentiles. So when the creator says that Luke is following the Jewish tradition of not mentioning women in genealogies, he seems oblivious of the fact that Matthew, whom you would expect to observe this dictate if it existed, goes out of his way to mention Tamar, Ruth, and Rahab by name, and also allude to Bathsheba.
"It's not plausible and is not in evidence but it's not impossible" can also be said of the idea that the Spaghetti Monster inspired both gospel writers to write different things for different reasons. Or that the Demiurge did it. Or that two different Muses laughed to each other as they played games with the authors. Or that one or both authors was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. But instead of any of these equally possible and equally untestable explanations, apologists offer a faulty appeal to tradition. They fail Philosophy 101 to maintain a tradition developed by another apologist whose motives and worldview are as alien to them as a Hindu. A for effort?
Thank you for your videos. I have a question: In order to defend their faith against the evolution theory, some apologists state that Adam and Eve may have been a metaphor for the first humans, not just two people. Would not this be a problem with a genealogy? If it mentions metaphorical/mythological characters such as Adam and Noah, the genealogy would be meaningless.
If the genolgies deposited at the temple in Jerusalem still existed, would they show the legalistic versions for dead brothers (J Africanus) or the natural fathers?
Here's what I wanna know - did ancient people really track their genealogies this diligently? That far back? We're talking about like over 1,000 years for Luke's and Matthew's genealogies! Luke indicates that Joseph returned to Bethlehem because he was of the line of David. I can perhaps see that - perhaps there would be a family tradition whereby someone would know that a very famous person was in their lineage, especially royalty. A select few people today know if they are related to George Washington, etc. But that was just 300 years ago, max. But we're talking about 1,000 years if Joseph returned to Bethlehem because that was the place of David's birth. I understand choosing David as the marker, but that's still arbitrary. There were ancestors before David and after. And, again, we have remarkable tools to track genealogy today and yet very few of us can trace our genealogies back any more than 150 years, and that's pushing it. I seriously doubt that ANYONE today could possibly know exactly who their ancestors were 1,000 years ago except perhaps people in long-lived monarchal lineages, such as the British monarchy. But that's a far cry from everyone. I have a hard time believing that, as the Bible seems to indicate, that it was this commonplace in ancient times to keep such diligent genealogical records. And Luke's account also seems to imply that there were public records of these genealogies readily available. Like, if you were supposed to return to your ancestral heritage home, how would anyone know if you chose to simply register where you lived (which history indicates is actually what happened). I mean, if you somehow went to the wrong town was there a Roman guard sitting there at the front of the line saying, "I'm sorry, Joseph, but it indicates here that your ancestors are from Bethlehem. So, unfortunately, you can't register here in Damascus." Really? I used to just carte blanche accept this fact. But it doesn't take a lot of thinking to throw serious doubt on it, just from a common sense perspective, let alone history.
During our Lord's life, His Messiahship was continually in question. Those who thought Him a native of Galilee were quick to denounce His claims. No one ever disputed that He was the Son of David. The Sanhedrin sought testimony against Him. Nothing would have been more effective or more easily obtained than His genealogy, and they certainly would have brought it against Him if He were not of the royal line. On the contrary, the Talmud, along with the bitterest denunciation states expressly, "He was related to the kingdom."
What I never understood either is why Luke. I mean the whole thing is an assertion, but why is it Luke who's tricking the audience here and not Matthew?
I know he doesn't want to talk about it from his own personal opinion, but I'd really like to know how someone with such an authentic understanding of how the Bible was created could remain a Christian in any sense of the word. What does Daniel believe? And how does he reconcile that with his obvious intelligence and knowledge to the contrary?
To my understanding having one of the genealogies be Mary's line makes no sense because the big reason for them is to establish Jesus is from the line of David and the Jewish monarchy was patrilineal, so Jesus is disqualified if it comes through mary. Then again, Joseph wasn't the baby daddy anyway so technically he's disqualified either way.
This is another tempest in a teapot. The young apologist makes a valid point. Dan dances around it avoiding the obvious - yet he also makes a valid pint; the two genealogies are written as they are according to the rhetorical purpose of the two different authors. That includes the three 14 generations framework. In Jewish numerology, 3s and 7s and multiples of those number had significance. So, Matthew does abbreviate the genealogy to fit his sets of 14-generations framework. That freedom to abbreviate is demonstrated in the OT genealogies as well. Everyone has two genealogies. In the case of Jesus, the family line in Matthew ran through his adoptive father Joseph. It showed that Jesus had the legal rights of that kingly line. No problem there. It was not an unusual practice in Judaism and not in the Roman world either. There were a lot of adoptions, some for very political purposes. In the case of Luke, the family line ran through Mary (who else was there?). Luke even tells us that Joseph was not the natural father of Jesus. Mary was not of the kingly line but was of the blood line of David. But Luke really wants to emphasize Jesus' identity with all men, so he takes the family line back to the origin of all men in Adam. No problem there. Obviously, the genealogies had different sources; each family kept their own different family histories. But what is the problem with that? So do mine. So do yours. The only real contradiction would be if the two genealogies were mutually incompatible. But they are not.
So why doesn't Luke identifies his genealogy with Mary, instead of Joseph? Even when they agree about a specific individual in the genealogy, they differ in his immediate ancestry (like Shealtiel being the son of Jeconiah or Neri)
@@plimpus4668 *why doesn't Luke identifies his genealogy with Mary, instead of Joseph?* Culturally, the father was the head of the family and his ancestors are usually the line that is significant. As far as I can remember there are no family lines that focus on mother's ancestors. Legally they did not matter. In the case of Luke's genealogy, he does indicate that Joseph was not the father by blood. But Jesus had no father by blood, so Luke follows the only bloodline Jesus had, the line of Mary. Luke wanted to note both the legal line (Joseph) and the bloodline (Mary) without getting lost in the weeds as we are there. *Shealtiel* That intersection of the destruction of the kingly line of Shealtiel and continuation of the line of David is difficult to decipher in Chronicles. It took some fancy footwork on the part of the Jews recording of the genealogies. Add to that the fact of multiple wives and several different lines of descendants coming from one father, and we have a knot that cannot be untied. It was not like Ancestry.com. But neither is it a contradiction. It is just a puzzle, and not a very important puzzle at that.
@@doncamp1150 the scenario you wrote about only happens if we assume Luke knew about the gospel of Matthew, which there is no indicative of. Both authors specifically wrote that these were the genealogies of Joseph, and Mary is only mentioned as his wife one time. And the notion that Luke or Matthew didn't mention Mary because the ancestry of the women didn't matter only makes it less likely that Luke's genealogy would actually be from Mary, as mentioning it would not give any type of spiritual or political authority to Jesus. This is also not really the case in Matthew's genealogy, as he mentions the known mother's of certain kings (like Tamar) Besides, Mary being part of the davidic line is in some way contradicted by the presence of Elizabeth, her cousin, whom Luke attributes levite ancestry as one of the "daughters of Aaron". About Shealtiel and the other instances of the problem of ancestry: yes, it is a contradiction. Not even the OT authors can really agree about his immediate ancestry, but Luke takes a step further by just assigning a completely different ancestry to him that, contrary to Matthew, does not agree with anything said about Shealtiel in Chronicles, for example. It is very clearly a contradiction, and one that occurs because these family trees have been mostly either fabricated, or reconstructed based on oral traditions and messianic beliefs that don't actually line up with reality.
v@@plimpus4668 *Luke knew about the gospel of Matthew" They both knew about the genealogies and no surprise if the genealogies preceded the Gospels. *the notion that Luke or Matthew didn't mention Mary because the ancestry of the women didn't matter only makes it less likely that Luke's genealogy would actually be from Mar* It would make it unlikely for Matthew. The line of kings might include a woman's name, as is the case for Bathsheba, but she doesn't matter as far as the genealogy is concerned, nor does Tamar. But you will note that Mary is mentioned by Matthew in the very next verse following the genealogy. Matthew did not leave her out. * Mary being part of the davidic line is in some way contradicted by the presence of Elizabeth, her cousin, whom Luke attributes levite ancestry as one of the "daughters of Aaron"* At this point the explanation gets a little complex and I've written that up on my blog biblicalmusing.blogspot.com/2024/04/one-of-puzzles-of-gospels-of-matthew.html Suffice to say that genealogies in the Bible and in our own lives are like braided steams.
@@doncamp1150 She is mentioned as being the "wife of Joseph". Luke's genealogy, doesn't even mentions Mary. There is no reason to assume it would've been Mary's genealogical tree, because the davidic line only passes through patrilleneal descent, so Jesus judahite claim would have come from his adoption by Joseph, not from Mary's womb. Even if we assume mentioning Mary's genealogy is important and affects Jesus claim to Messiah Ben David (and Luke does not cite her, for some reason) and that she was both a Levite and a Judahite, than that runs into conflicts with the other texts of the bible, where Jesus is specifically mentioned as a priest in the line of Melchizedek, due to his lack of aaronic origin and him supersiding the earthly priestly lineage, as citing Mary's line would open a precedent for Jesus to have inherited his claim to the priesthood through his mother, as he did with his davidic status. Additionally, when they go to Bethelhem, Luke only mentions Joseph as being from the line of David, not Mary. Early christian tradition also never mentions the individual "Heli" as the father of Mary. In second century apocryphal Gospel of James, he is named Joachim. Even when early christians realised the genealogies didn't match, never was it brought up that Luke was writting about Mary, and not Joseph. Addiotionally, to wrap it up, we know Luke's family line contains made up individuals, as the names "Joseph", "Judah", and "Simon" as personal names never appear in pre-exillic times, and "Levi" is only appears during the maccabean period, meaning the names present in Luke's genealogy are anachoronistic and likely made up.
You kind of hint this direction, but you don't come and explicitly say it, but it comes down to this: What reason is there to think that Luke's genealogy is for Mary? Aside from the made up "there's a Jewish tradition," even if that's the case, what is the basis for asserting that Luke is doing that? For example, I was looking at a website (not going to promote it) where it talks about Matthew's genealogy. Then, when it comes to Luke's genealogy, it says, "Based on the previous facts, Luke's genealogy must list Jesus' ancestors through his mother" Really? Why "must" Luke be listing Jesus's ancestors through his mother? Oh, because it doesn't agree with Matthew, and so, obviously, Luke is listing the genealogy of Mary. Duh. Of course, that doesn't quite explain why, for example, Matthew and Luke have different paths that go from, say, David to Shealtiel. Matthew has Shealtiel the son of Jeconiah. Luke has Shealtiel the son of Neri. Whoops. Does that mean one of those Luke is referring to Shealtiel's mother, too?
Don't get me wrong. I am very impressed with the content and your brain power. However I want to know how you get the highlight to go over the exact word you are saying at the exact right time. Is that some sort of ai? Some sort of program? All the stuff I see you can pretty much break it up into sentences and that's about it. You do exact words how do you do that?
Totally unrelated and I’m just a stranger on the internet so pay no heed but you look a lot happier/more lively now that you’re doing TikTok full time, no dark circles under your eyes and stuff, but I’m still not a fan of the beard.
I think people get fixated on irrelevant details sometimes. Like they get lost in the sauce and miss the forest for the trees. I feel like cats are missing the point of these stories. Also, why is Joseph's lineage important if he's not actually Jesus' father? Y'know what i mean?
The genealogy was important to the authors because of a requirement for the prophesied Messiah to be the direct descendant of someone or other. (I forget who. Probably Abraham I would guess.) So they stuck the genealogy in there to lend legitimacy to the claim that Jesus was truly the messiah. Otherwise the naysayers would have legitimate grounds to reject the claim.
The dogmas of univocality and inerrancy developed over hundreds of years. The idea that any deviations in the text must be explained away hasn't always been a motivating force in Christian "scholarship".
The gospels of Matthew and Luke may have been written independently, both borrowing from Mark. Thus one author wrote a genealogy with no knowledge of the other author's intentions nor the existence of their gospel. Why it hasn't been edited at some point from then onward is impossible to say.
The separate gospels were already copied and in decent circulation before they were added together as one canon bible. The cat was out of the bag. Making them match would have been blatant editing to what was now being accepted as "Gid-breathed".
@@alanb8884 But like i mentioned, there have been later changes, for example 1 John 5:7 which adds the trinity concept to the new testament. There is evidence that his verse didn't exist in the earliest greek manuscripts and only appears in the later latin ones.
These two parts of scripture are indeed the lineage of Joseph and the lineage of Mary. Where these two intersect is with Boaz and Ruth. We find this in the book of Ruth where it teaches about the kinsman redeemer. The reason why Luke 3:23 says “(as was supposed the Son of Joseph)” is because those without the knowledge of the immaculate conception supposed He was the son of Joseph the carpenter as we read in Matthew 13:55-"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" There is not a contradiction here and one needs to consider the whole story of Jesus’ earthly lineages before forming an opinion on the subject.
I don't dismiss the idea that women have been historically marginalized and therefore underrepresented in historical documents such as genealogies. But when it comes to Jewish genealogy, aren't Jewish people kind of big on matrilineal descent?
I think the author of Mark made an intentional decision to not give Jesus a father. It is just another element contributing to his low status in a patriarchal society.
As a believer, aren't they just showing us that Jesus is connected to the important figures of Judiasm, such as genealogies that connect Caesar to the founder of Rome or Alexander the Great to Zeus? Why does it have to be a literal genealogy? And if it is connecting to even mythical figures & founders of nations, couldn't then any Jewish person connect their lineage to such personages? I don't understand the need to push the text beyond its limits to make such lists literal.
To this day, some people who convert to Islam adopt genealogies that show their descent from Mohammed. The authors of the gospels are probably just doing the same thing.
Dan, I think you’re being too generous here. The scenarios that are being ginned up here are not even remotely, conceivably possible. That’s not the bar they’re trying to clear. They just provide stories that allow them to ignore the contradictory details and retreat to the comfort of self-righteousness. Great work as always!
¿When are we going to collectively develop some spiritual maturity and dump this pathetic clinging to the need for belief in the inerrancy, univocality, and/or infallibility of the collected human writings called the Bible?
1:59 Well, categorizing it as PURE speculation isn’t quite right. Each genealogy has its own stark characteristic. The Jews had a seemingly insurmountable issue regarding the prophesies of the Messiah. He was to be the hero to the throne of David, (first born son of the first born son, etc.) but then during that lineage one king was cursed due to bad behavior and told that the Messiah would not be “of his blood.” One genealogy goes through the line of kings who were cursed to Joseph. And since Jesus was Joseph’s (adopted) first born son and his heir, he would inherit the “throne of David” through Joseph. The other genealogy is also in David’s line, but skipped the cursed kings. If this genealogy is Mary’s, then Jesus, who would only have had Mary’s blood as a result of the virgin birth, would have miraculously fulfilled the prophesied while also avoiding the curse.
But I thought Jesus' father was God? 🤔 You know, Mary's virgin birth, and all that. So, no off-spring producing involvement with Joseph. How is Joseph's ancestral lineage relevant at all to Jesus, when Joseph is not the 'baby daddy', God is? God being the Creator limits Jesus's paternal line to God, doesn't it?
If it's as these apologists explain, then speaking with people back in ancient times must've been awfully confusing. "Yeshua, I'm your grandfather! Your father's father!" "Heli?" "No, no. I'm Jacob." "Mea culpa! When you said you're my father's father, I took that to mean you meant in the sense of Hebraic genealogies by listing only the male names. Plus, you have mom's nose."
1 chronicles 29.18 O Lord God of Abraham Isaac and of Israel our fathers keep this for ever in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of thy people and prepare their heart unto thee. 1 chronicles 28.9 And thou Solomon my son know thou the God of thy father and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind for the Lord searcheth all hearts and understandth all the imaginations of the thoughts if thou seek him he will be found of thee but if thou forsake him he will cast thee off for ever. I have have blocked you once. The was written out of imagination. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost which is the word of God. God is not going to force any one to read and study the word of God. Luke 1.50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. He hath shewed strength with his arm he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. The dragon.
That's one reason for the conjecture that the genealogy in Luke's gospel is Mary's. It matters because the genealogy in Matthew's gospel traces line of succession to David's throne, not biological descent.
@MusicalRaichu I've always felt that how Jesus lived his life was far more important than who his ancestors were, and that people who insist on "proving" that the Bible is factual accurate are trying to claim to be Christians without actually following Christ's example.
@@ethenallen1388 Of course. The point here is that Matthew's gospel was written to a particular audience with the purpose of arguing that Jesus was the Messiah. To this end, the genealogy is presented as evidence that he was in line for David's throne. It's not an issue for us, but it was for the original audience.
This is a genuine question, not at all meant to sound accusatory but I can’t express sincerity over text. Dan, why the Bible and Christianity? Why are there no videos debunking the Quran/Islam or Hinduism or any other religion? What is about Christianity?
Because his specialty and academic life's work is biblical scholarship. Why do you want him to critique something like the quran which he has admitted to have no expert knowledge of? He is a BIBLICAL scholar. Not a Quranic or Veda scholar. If you want to watch critique on those religions and texts, then there are plenty of experts in those fields you can watch rather than whining that people with no qualifications on the texts aren't making videos about those texts. Dan does what is the most honest approach, sticking to what he knows best.
It's still a bit of a "need to squint" argument though: "... υἱός ὡς ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ τοῦ Μαθθὰτ τοῦ Λευὶ τοῦ Μελχὶ ...." is a very strong invitation to consider Joseph as being son of Eli, but only the so-called father of Jesus. The Tabor version invites us to take "so-called" as meaning "just ignore Joseph altogether" then treat Eli as a pet name for Eliaqim who turns up in [EDIT: some early Christian writings] as Joaqim (because God is both El and JHVH) and happens to be Mary's father.
@@howlrichard1028 I said "father-in-law"-that means Luke's genealogy is Mary's geneology (as validated by a liberal critical scholar like Tabor-and that's why I would take it seriously)!
Why would an American know intimate details about their President's ancestry?? I don't mind contradictions, but Luke's genealogy, if he was a traveling companion of Paul, could have originated from the oral geneology that Jesus' family would have used as a theologically symbolic (77-generation) genealogy. In which case, it didn't matter if it wasn't Joseph's historical genealogy-as Dr McLellan forgets, but liberal New Testament expert James Tabor points out-the Greek text literally doesn't explicitly state that Joseph was a son of the man next to him. That deliberate omission of the word ouios (son) could signal a transparent theological fiction.
You are missing the point. The genealogies don't match and can only be reconciled by going to ridiculous lengths. For those who think the bible has NO contradictions, that is a problem. If you are a "liberal" Christian, the whole issue is probably irrelevant.
@@wheat3226 my point is that James Tabor who is a non-christian critical liberal scholar of Early Christianity has validated the correct claim that Luke was talking of Mary's geneology afterall-even though he metaphorically inserts Joseph but refuses to say the man is Joseph's father in the GREEK (English translations introduce the word SON that isn't really there). There're plenty of old testament passages where you can swim in a sea of real contradictions - this isn't just one of them!
@@tsemayekekema2918 From the context we can understand that the text was likely implying that Joseph was the son. James Tabor also talked about how Jesus could have been fathered by a Roman soldier known as Panthera. From what I understand, both of his speculations are not taken seriously within academia.
If Luke had been interested in establishing patrilineal descent to David, he would not have done what he did. That descent would have had to have gone to David through Solmon. It did not. Jesus had a blood connection to David and that is all. Luke's genealogy is decidedly NO-JEWISH. *if the blood ancestry of his mother has any bearing on his claim to religious life, then he wouldn't have to be called a "priest of Melchizedek", as he has levite blood.* *YOU DIDN'T READ HEBREWS 7*. It is that exact point that is being made. Luke never suggests Jesus is a priest or of Levitical linage by official legal descent. Neither does he in Acts. In fact, no NT author does. JESUS IS NOT A LEVITICAL PRIEST. He is better than that. He is a priest appointed by God. (Hebrews 7:11) He replaces the Levitical line. This whole idea is cooked up somewhere in your head.
I assume that you know the seven nations that were commanded by Yahweh to be destroyed one of which was the Hittites and another the Canaanites; so when the David character had Uriyah The Hittite killed in a battle he was punished where upon the sword would never leave his house but David should have been commended for doing the right thing. Also the commandment was that if they gave their daughters to these nations their hearts would be turned away from Yahweh so what was Batsheva doing being married to a Hittite? Numbers 21:3 States that the Canaanites were destroyed completely but apparently not because a Canaanite woman shows up on Matt. 15:22 desiring mercy; Num. 33:55 Describes the penalty for having mercy on these people in that there would be pricks in their eyes and thorns in their sides if Israel failed to drive these people out of the land. Either this God is a psychotic or the whole thing is a lie or perhaps a different god. The Torah says nothing about Jerusalem or a temple there, but the commandment was to place the Kodesh upon The mount of cursing Ebal: Deut. 27. When you look at the life of Jesus in the New Testament there is not one thing that he does that is in obedience to the Torah, for example: the Torah says that during the Passover that everyone would be standing and eating in haste with their staff in their hand but that isn’t what Jesus did at the pass over, he sat down without a staff and not guarded for travel. There was an everlasting covenant between Phineas the high priest and Yahweh a covenant of the priesthood and of peace forever, olam ve olam. Numbers 25:12-13. The anointed priest was Mashiak Leviticus 4:3, 4:5, 4:16, and 6:22 H4899 Mashiach/anointed.
Qur'an says Israel 🇮🇱 43 times no Palestine in Quran. Muhammad originally prayed towards Jerusalem before Mecca Kabba was built and never wrote anything about Palestine Palestinians in Quran. Abu Bakar never mentioned Palestine.
*The King James Bible **_was_** at one time a literary masterpiece without blemish. What I mean is there were no spelling, grammar or punctuation errors in it. I have a short film in my playlist on how that was acheived. Now, they're on every page! And there are MANY word switches too! Satan has **_supernaturally_** attacked it more than any other translation, but all of them in **_EVERY LANGUAGE_** have been destroyed in the fulfillment of prophecy! Plus all concordances, encyclopedias, dictionaries, history books, the oldest manuscripts and the Dead Sea scrolls have been miraculously changed to match!* *Not every word, Satan is too smart for that and he understands that rats won't eat pure poison so .05% is added to 99.95% corn. The rats love it because they can't taste the poison ... and perish for lack of knowlege! If you ever needed to obey God's commandment to ''prove all things'' and investigate something, this is it!!!* *Our Father said to "prove all things" and you better obey Him on this thing especially. I have an exceptional memory, I remember my third birthday party and can draw an accurate picture of my baby stroller. I'm 71, was saved when I was 10 and **_had been_** reading only the **_exact same copy_** of the King James bible since 1961. (I am not a king James onlyist, but now I'm glad I never read any others or I might not have noticed the changes as soon.) I memorized many scriptures out of it over the years and I absolutely **_know_** that the word **_demons_** used to be all through it. But today that word is not anywhere in there! It was replaced with **_devils._** And the only place I've ever read the word **_wineskins_** was in my bible, but it's not in it any more either. It was replaced with **_bottles._** And now **_unicorns, easter, matrix, castles, damsels, stuff, corn, colleges, banks, employment, schools, missles, tires, mufflers, manifolds, engines, highways, suburbs, pavement, presidents, doctors, pilots, sheriffs, beer, dumb ass, India, Spain, Italy, ferryboats, couches_** and lots of other words are in my bible that I never saw in it my whole life! Many of these words are anachronisms (THEY DIDN'T EVEN EXIST IN 1611!!!!) It never talked about men with milk in their breasts or fathers nursing babies either, but now it does! Isaiah 11:6 used to say the **_lion_** shall lie down with the lamb, not the **_wolf_** shall also dwell with the lamb! Lion represents Jesus and wolf is associated with Satan! There are 15 films in my playlist with plenty of undeniable "residue" showing that ''wolf'' has replaced "Lion". (Residue is what they call all the things Satan missed as he was changing our world.) Luke 17:34 used to say "two shall be in one bed, one shall be taken and the other one left", but now it says "two **_men_** shall be in one bed...! And the following verse said "two women shall be grinding at the mill together..." and now it just says "two women shall be **_grinding together_** ...! So now the bible makes it sound like some homosexuals are going to be ''raptured"! BTW **_nobody's going to be "raptured" until after the tribulation. The Wrath of God follows._* But *this is the BIGGIE,* in Luke 19:27 it has Jesus saying "And those mine enemies that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and *SLAY THEM BEFORE ME!"* It did say _eshew_ them away! This change makes Christians sound like radical extremists!! *Millions of Christians will be killed because of this verse!!!* And I know that this is a parable, but the king Jesus was talking about was Himself, the King of Kings! *I memorized the Lord's prayer as a boy because Jesus told us to say it, and I have said it tens of thousands of times, and it absolutely did not say **_which_** art in heaven, it said **_who_** art in heaven, it didn't say **_in earth,_** it was **_on earth._** And it now says forgive us our **_debts_** instead of our **_trespasses!!!_* *God has sent His strong delusion to all of the people that never received the love of the truth! What's scary is, so far that appears to be almost all believers, and **_pastors!!!_** This incredible phenomenon they're calling the Mandela effect is absolutely real, but it should actually be called the Daniel 7:25 effect because that's where God said He would give the Antichrist power to do this, (''change times and laws''). I first became aware of some of the bible changes in 2014 before I ever had a computer or had heard of the Mandela effect. But since 2016 I've watched many hundreds of videos on the subject, and saved some of the best and most important ones for proving our bibles have been changed and pointing out all the places this was talked about in end time prophecies that we had previously misinterpreted in my playlist which you can see by 👉 typing into RUclips (PROOF OF BIBLE CHANGE RESIDUE JUNKIE 1)* 👈 *By the time you have seen all these films which point out the many misinterpreted prophecies being fulfilled **_supernaturally,_** you will have grown MUCH closer to Jesus the never changing Word of God and your faith will be 1,000% stronger ... GUARANTEED!!!!!!!* *Even though I will no longer read any bible, (unless Jesus changes them back), I continue to study what God's word said by seeing what scriptures have been changed with proof of what was originally written. I urge you all to do the same, while you still can, because when the lights go out, all we'll have then is hard copies of the bible Satan wants us reading! At that point Amos **8:12** will be fulfilled where it says we will no longer be able to find His words anywhere again.* *This is without question the biggest and most important event since the day of Pentecost! When you see absolute proof that the miraculous fulfillment of end time prophecies is happening with your own eyes and how close we are to our Savior's return, it's the most faith strengthening and exciting thing that you've ever experienced!* *God bless you all!!!* ❤✝️💪🏻 *P.S. After people have taken all of the required 💉's, they will apply a quantum dot invisible tattoo to their head or hand, but anyone who has had just one has a bluetooth mac # that can be read by any smart phone and when you walk through the deal at an airport they know if you have it. The no buying or selling is happening incrementally and will be complete when cash is abolished and worship can be defined as "to fear, obey and trust in someone or something" which is what they are doing with the Beast System and the Image of the Beast, (NWO and TV!). They also now have triple helix DNA, are no longer human and if they have children they won't be human either! Yes, this absolutely is it, and👉 if you write me at the address on my about page👈 I'll send you 15 **_shocking_** films that will PROVE it to anyone who has the courage to watch them.*
Fair enough, but I would argue that in the long run falsehood only weakens the foundation of faith. Once you discover that the “salesman” has lied to you in order to close the sale, how can you possibly have the same level of trust in anything else he says?
@mrq6270 what lie? The initial mission of the apostles was to convince Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. The Jews rejected Christ even knowing he rose from the dead. This rejection was prophesied, BTW. In spite of the Jewish rejection, the gospel went to the world fulfilling the prophesies in Hosea. Christianity changed the world. The Great Tribulation awaits. God keeps his word.
@@cedward5718I don't think that was the winner comeback you thought it was. It sure does reveal their heart vs. yours, you want to keep everyone controlled and ignorant while they want to defend themselves. That sounds like your loss, not theirs.
I can not adequately express my appreciation for the work you are doing.
"There is no such tradition. This is just made up."
I don't know why but that legit made me laugh out loud.
Same
"there is no data to support the historicity of these genealogies"
Then: _immediately assumes the Jesus of the gospels is historical_
@@MarcillaSmith - I don't understand your confusion. Mohammad is historical, but that doesn't mean he split the moon in two and put it back together.
@@MarcillaSmith "immediately assumes the Jesus of the gospels is historical" As does 99% of the academic community.
@@MarcillaSmith No. He does not assume that the Jesus of the gospels is historical. That is not the academic consensus. The academic consensus is that the Jesus of the gospels is based on a historical person that a sect of Judaism was built around that later became Christianity.
You are a scholar and have great knowledge my man !
"... that bar that's buried underground..." Great as always, Dan.
Here’s the best part. Matthew failed in his attempt to show the 14 generation symmetry. He missed 1 generation!
This is run of the mill apologies I heard growing up in evangelical churches. Thanks for getting to the truth of the matter Dan.
We can trace Hercules genealogy from Zeus to Chronos.
So obviously real. Checkmate Dan.
thanks Dan. I remember hearing this creator's rebuttal in Christian circles and thought it didn't pass the smell test.
Thanks for keeping us informed Dan. 🙏🏿
This series is my favorite that you've done recently. Thanks for all you do Dan!
Discovered you the other day on Kipp's channel and I'm already addicted to your content, thanks for your great work.
I can say from firsthand experience spending the first 32 years of my life in fundamentalist Christianity, that these explanations are accepted without question by most, if not all, fundamentalists. Dan is absolutely correct in that it's all about making those who already believe comfortable in their belief.
Yep, you nailed it. Pastors will say this stuff and the congregation just nods along
Even among Dan's vids, this one is exceptional.
Dan so clearly and effectively articulates what apologetics is largely about - Rejecting _best_ evidence to favour _any_ evidence or hypothesis that allows for the possibility of your ideology remaining true.
Apologetics is generally a desperate scramble to make Christianity possible, in an age of increasing scrutiny and reliance upon scientific and evidence based methodology. 'Just trust me bro' is still a preferred methodology for many, apologists in particular.
The thing you will realize is this particular series of videos is actually light work for Dr. McClellan.
I'm completely addicted to your videos. Keep 'em coming!
Not impossible.
Or as Jim Carey said in Dumb and Dumber... " So you're telling me there's a chance"
/ Note: Edited cos I got the quote wrong. Good catch, @vic
One of the best movie quotes of all time! Well played.
What do we know about Mary's parents? A woman's father was one of the important details about her life, but who would have kept a full genealogy?
Thanks for your brutal honesty Dan. It was apologists that deconverted me from Christianity, their endless lies made me question my faith, Atheists had no part in it.
Dan!! This is gold!! How many times a day i hear these as being debunked. Thank you!!
Thanks Dan! The learning continues.
Thanks 4 your scholarship
I find it interesting that they try so hard to "harmonize" things like this. (See also lists of the 12 disciples.) In one of the letters of Timothy (whoever wrote those, not Paul) there's an explicit warning about "myths and genealogies" that ells me this has been going on for a long time.
This was one of the things i picked up on reading through the Bible as a child. I think very few 'Christians' do anything other than just skip over.
Sez you.
Someone with REAL critical thinking skills would realize that it is highly unlikely that there would be ANY genealogical records for lower class peasants and so the authors would have had to make something up.
So it was ok for the author of Luke to list Elizabeth as a daughter of Aaron but not ok for him to list Mary as the daughter of Heli?
Thank you.
5:14 “…getting over this bar that’s buried underground…” killed me!
Although No Bar Bill has recently found a way to go even lower than that.
I think Matthew has another problem in its genealogy, where Matthew tries to account for 42 generations but only lists 41. And you can kind of see this with the neatness of the divisions of 14, where for the first 2 you can see 14 generations but is only 13 in the last division.
Like Matthew was so dumb he didn't know that
Hey Dan, would love a video about dating the gospels in general. Love your work. Its inspired me to learn some ancient greek :) (by that i mean ive done a single lecture on the alphabet lol)
Well, _I_ find it very convincing, because if _I_ had to make up so many names there would be long stretches that go “Bob, son of Otherbob, son of Prebob, son of Preprebob, …”.
Danny Devito will play power forward for the Lakers next year. Not plausible, but not impossible.
According to Church fathers who never met me and had no possible way to have access to my geneology, I'm directly descended from Spider-Man and Amaterasu no Okami, Japanese Goddess of the Sun and progenitor of the Japanese royal family.
Also Adam, because *everyone* is supposed to be descended from Adam.
May your divine shadow fall upon me!
Where do I send my tithe?
Wait a minute... Apologists often claim that one genealogy is Mary's and one is Joseph's. So if they diverge and come back together and diverge again... that means the whole family is inbred.
My mom and dad were second cousins. I resemble that remark...
Being 10th cousins or whatever isn't significant. We're all distant cousins if you go back far enough.
@@ratamacue0320 Exactly so. Based on an estimated population of England of 2 million in 1066 allowing 40 generations since then, the average Englishman is descended from William the Conqueror through roughly 500,000 lines of descent.
@@ratamacue0320 are they 10th cousins or are you just guessing? The man in the scenario is the same on both sides, so unless the women are different (which there's no reason to believe) it's incest.
When you have to make shit up to support the most mundane aspects of your religion, you know you done messed up.
There are many apologists who speak _ex cacat_ .
Dan says the two genealogies are literary creations. Is that a legitimate way to talk about something? Does the use of literary creations in storytelling discredit the story? Is the story of Jesus and the value of the Gospels discredited unless the Gospels are strict factual accounts with no deviations.
What does it mean for the creator to whom Dan is responding to twist himself into knots to assert that the genealogies have to reconcile?
Suppose it means he's a fool who wants to force his own perspective onto the Gospels and doesn't care about understanding them.
Is that possible?
Yes.
Is it plausible?
Yes.
It is plausible that it doesn't mean that?
No.
Is it possible?
My opinion is no.
I bet I've heard his explanations before. 🤦🏻♂️🙇🏻♂️
Called it 🙋🏻♂️
We Christians are crazy.
1:48 Nope, both are of Joseph's side even by the reckoning of the passages themselves. The only way these genealogies could also be of Mary's side is if she is also Joseph's biological sister which would make their relationship an incestuous one which is basically not allowed even back then.
It always seems to go over their heads that if you are trying to reconcile a contraction and even if successful it does not remove the contradiction - it just explains it. The contradiction is still there - "as is." Some of these apologists have more moves than Cirque du Solei.
In Bible College there was always some explanation for the contradictions that never really seemed to be legitimate. But we were taught to only believe. Otherwise, just plead stupidity and more on.
I'm predicting that part 4 will come down to the not impossible argument
Reminds me of Scottish Americans being obsessed with tracing their lineage to Robert the Bruce. Any genealogy is possible if you squint enough.
I am the 14th cousin of William Wallace, twice removed on my great great grandmothers side.
Assuming just two surviving children per generation, RtB could have on the order of 20 million descendants today.
It's even probably true. Something like 30-40% of all Americans can trace descent from King John of England. But going back that far it's just a matter of mathematics. Your great-great times 10 grandparents and every generation between had so many siblings and cousins a lot of family trees are going to overlap eventually. It's just that the lineages of historical elites tend to be better attested.
Well, I am a descendant of King Charlemagne, King of the Franks!
But so are most Europeans! 😉
We are all related if we go back in time enough. 😊
This is not a contradiction! The Bible is perfectly clear and consistent: Joseph was raised by *two dads*, Jacob & Heli, who were obviously a loving gay couple. Now, it doesn't say that they were married, but I think it is blasphemous to suggest that the father of the Lord was raised outside of a marriage, so I think it's safe to assume that the Bible is providing us with is a wonderful example of a loving gay marriage.
If these “Christians” would spend as much time and effort on practicing the teachings of Jesus as they do on having to find ridiculous ways to convolute Scripture, the world might be better place. Thanks Dan for sharing your knowledge!
If they did, they might have to be nice to people who make them feel icky.
Then they'd have absolutely no basis for their beliefs and be ridiculed for such. Isn't that so?
I recall an interesting argument from a Rabbi: If Jesus was born of a virgin, then he can’t be a descendant of David, as this was only passed on patriarchally in Judaism. The Messiah, according to him, must be a blood descendant of David. This, he proposed, makes it an open shut case.
Hence Christians redefining what Messiah means.
Ah, the explanation I grew up with. And I do agree that the second speculation sounds ever so slightly more plausible than listing a different family line than the one you claim you're doing.
For that one that Luke is giving Mary's genealogy I found it rather suspicious that no other examples of this in history were given when I no longer accepted these teachings as authoritative
Did you know there was a Jewish tradition of releasing criminals during Passover?
The tradition was so entrench even a Roman governor kowtowed to it and released Jewish prisoners held by Romans.
I'm sure all the ancient historians mentioned this incredible fact.
@emptyhand777 what has that got to do with the fact that the gospel genealogies of jesus are conflicting and the excuses given by Christer apologists are literally pulled out of their butt?
@@jaclo3112 - sarcasm, I was comparing wild Biblical claims that have no historical standing.
If Pontius Pilate released a Roman prisoner like Barabbas, the Emperor would have had him removed.
@@emptyhand777 understood and totally agree. Just like the "tradition" of taking down the bodies from the cross. It wasn't a tradition. So much shite is made up in the bible.
You gotta give him credit for having a Perry the Platypus in the background tho
There is a live debate on Daniel verses 2 and 7 between Central Dawah and Albee please can you critique it. Thanks
Would not Natural and Legal descent still end up with the same grandfather=the difference being a choice between 2 brothers?
I was taught that based on evidence in the text, Matthew's gospel followed line of succession to argue Jesus had right to the throne, deliberately left out generations to make it three lots of fourteen, and deliberately left in unsavoury characters such as Rahab.
It's possible Luke's gospel follows (or attempted to follow, we don't know the veracity of his sources) biological descent.
“In the beginning of the composition, Nammu wakes up her son Enki to inform him that other gods are complaining about the heavy tasks assigned to them. As a solution, he suggests the creation of mankind, and instructs Nammu how to form men from clay with the help of Ninmah and her assistants (Ninimma, Shuzianna, Ninmada, Ninšar, Ninmug, Mumudu and Ninnigina according to Wilfred G. Lambert's translation). After the task is finished, Enki prepares a banquet for Nammu and Ninmah, which other deities, such as Anu, Enlil and the seven assistants, also attend.”
So much for Adam. It is delusional to believe that Adam commences any lineage. It is a point of distinction that civilization begins with what Eridu built from mud and clay. The two gods mentioned above Enki and Nammu, the first of which is one of the oldest, if not oldest attested god. Both are gods of Eridu, Nammu known as the divine creator.
“Eridu is one of the earliest settlements in the region, founded c. 5400 BC during the Early Ubaid period, at that time close to the Persian Gulf near the mouth of the Euphrates River though in modern times about 90 miles inland.”
Level VII of the Eridu "temple", final Obaid period. “The archaeological significance of Eridu is also related to the deep stratigraphy of its principal mound (Abu Shahrein), explored in the 1940s by pioneering archaeologists Fuad Safar and Seton Lloyd, which revealed the oldest southern Mesopotamian temple.” And the oldest layers of the temple date to about 5000 BCE. Again, what is Eridu and how was Mesopotamia built. By men, in the beginning no copper, no bronze, no local sources of wood it was built from mud and reeds, fish and barely. It was Samara culture, up the Tigris, that breathed civilizing life into mud of Eridu.
What is important to note here is this. The oldest biblical genealogy dates to a little shy of 4200 BCE, about the time of Uruk period. But Eridu predates that by 1300 years and has a temple to its primordial god Absu, whose, according to mythology grandaughter created man from clay under the instruction of Enki, the equivalent of Yahweh in many of his roles in Genesis. (and in my opinion actually Yalu of Beth Lahmi, a prototypically form of Yahweh).
So what’s the point here. When anyone anywhere in the Bible gives an extended genealogy it’s a literary trick in order to bury the origin of their god, Enki was not a god when the E-absu was built (and Yahweh certainly wasn’t), into the foundations of civilization created by man. Reversing the roles of man and god. This is why Eridu is important. The Bible is conflating the time of the origin of Uruk, because of its central importance in early regional pantheons, with actual origin because Uruk is where writing takes off. But the early stories of creation come from Eridu and are probably prehistoric.
The stories of Matthew and Luke are trying to anchor Jesus into lineages with authoritative claims. Nasra was probably a lookout for the city of Tzipori which dates back to the 8th century BCE. During the exile period Jews and other derivative Israelites probably lived here and gradually adopted palmayran and Hellenistic influences that grew in prominence. Any relation the people of Nasra had with the Jewish monarchy (if any) probably faded with time and Jesus stock almost certainly among those forced to convert by John Hyrcanus.
We get to the point in the modern period where the profession of the biblical origin schema is more or less a socially acceptable form of delusion. It’s completely debunked, we know what humans were doing before 4200 BCE and we where the older versions of these stories and the gods of these stories come from.
I'm going to be radically fair and praise the stitched creator for correctly pronouncing "genealogy."
How is it *possible* that one is the line of Mary if both explicitly say that they're talking about the father of Joseph? How is it *possible* that they're talking about brothers if they don't share the next generation back? I'm not convinced of even these possibilities.
Whoah hang on! Didn’t Hunter do this when Beau died?
Seriously, the likelihood of being able to trace lineage like that a couple thousand years ago is so absurd, it boggles the mind. It’s a lot easier now with DNA testing, but even 25-30 years ago, when my uncle was tracing our family history, it was incredibly difficult.
Like - who would have even kept records like that 2 millennia ago? Where? Why haven’t we found any others?
As a Christian myself I must admit that Jeconiah even being mentioned in the lineage presents another huge problem that I have struggled to wrap my head around....this considering Jeremiah 22:28-30.
If the author of Matthew, who seemed to be speaking to a primarily Jewish audience, is trying to display just how Jesus' lineage makes him eligible for kingship as a descendant of David, then they either must not have know about Jeconiah's curse (which doesn't seem plausible since they quite frequently quoted the Hebrew Bible), they didn't care, or they just reinterpreted it somehow to make Jesus still eligible. 🤷🏾♂️
Im curious to hear your thoughts on this Dan. 🤔
But Joseph isn’t Jesus’ father according to the story YHWH is. So Joseph’s genealogy means nothing.
The story as we see it now. There's some evidence that the whole "born of a virgin" thing was a retcon to fulfill a prophecy that wasn't even about the Messiah but the Gospel authors thought made it a better story.
It means that the gospels authors didn’t think that Jesus was LITERALLY the son of god.
As in the meme “if we are all god’s children what’s so special about Jesus?” 😅
Both genealogies go through Joseph, that's the next problem
It could be connected to the idea of a legal genealogy. Joseph is supposed to have been from the house of David, and that's the family line of the messiah
@@douglasphillips5870 Except that runs into the issue of basic math: David was 1000 years before. Over that length of time, literally _everyone_ in the region--probably the eastern Mediterranean basin--would have been a descendant of David.
Another prime example of data over dogma. Thanks, as always, Dan.
This apologist is typical of the breed. Totally uninterested in truth and caring only for defending his beliefs with lies. Shameful, of course, but hardly surprising.
It is very common for apologists to explain differences between Matthew and Luke by saying that Matthew wrote from a Jewish perspective, while Luke's gospel was targeted at the Gentiles. So when the creator says that Luke is following the Jewish tradition of not mentioning women in genealogies, he seems oblivious of the fact that Matthew, whom you would expect to observe this dictate if it existed, goes out of his way to mention Tamar, Ruth, and Rahab by name, and also allude to Bathsheba.
"It's not plausible and is not in evidence but it's not impossible" can also be said of the idea that the Spaghetti Monster inspired both gospel writers to write different things for different reasons. Or that the Demiurge did it. Or that two different Muses laughed to each other as they played games with the authors. Or that one or both authors was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
But instead of any of these equally possible and equally untestable explanations, apologists offer a faulty appeal to tradition. They fail Philosophy 101 to maintain a tradition developed by another apologist whose motives and worldview are as alien to them as a Hindu.
A for effort?
Thank you for your videos. I have a question:
In order to defend their faith against the evolution theory, some apologists state that Adam and Eve may have been a metaphor for the first humans, not just two people.
Would not this be a problem with a genealogy? If it mentions metaphorical/mythological characters such as Adam and Noah, the genealogy would be meaningless.
If the genolgies deposited at the temple in Jerusalem still existed, would they show the legalistic versions for dead brothers (J Africanus) or the natural fathers?
Here's what I wanna know - did ancient people really track their genealogies this diligently? That far back? We're talking about like over 1,000 years for Luke's and Matthew's genealogies! Luke indicates that Joseph returned to Bethlehem because he was of the line of David. I can perhaps see that - perhaps there would be a family tradition whereby someone would know that a very famous person was in their lineage, especially royalty. A select few people today know if they are related to George Washington, etc. But that was just 300 years ago, max. But we're talking about 1,000 years if Joseph returned to Bethlehem because that was the place of David's birth. I understand choosing David as the marker, but that's still arbitrary. There were ancestors before David and after. And, again, we have remarkable tools to track genealogy today and yet very few of us can trace our genealogies back any more than 150 years, and that's pushing it. I seriously doubt that ANYONE today could possibly know exactly who their ancestors were 1,000 years ago except perhaps people in long-lived monarchal lineages, such as the British monarchy. But that's a far cry from everyone. I have a hard time believing that, as the Bible seems to indicate, that it was this commonplace in ancient times to keep such diligent genealogical records. And Luke's account also seems to imply that there were public records of these genealogies readily available. Like, if you were supposed to return to your ancestral heritage home, how would anyone know if you chose to simply register where you lived (which history indicates is actually what happened). I mean, if you somehow went to the wrong town was there a Roman guard sitting there at the front of the line saying, "I'm sorry, Joseph, but it indicates here that your ancestors are from Bethlehem. So, unfortunately, you can't register here in Damascus." Really? I used to just carte blanche accept this fact. But it doesn't take a lot of thinking to throw serious doubt on it, just from a common sense perspective, let alone history.
During our Lord's life, His Messiahship was continually in question. Those who thought Him a native of Galilee were quick to denounce His claims. No one ever disputed that He was the Son of David. The Sanhedrin sought testimony against Him. Nothing would have been more effective or more easily obtained than His genealogy, and they certainly would have brought it against Him if He were not of the royal line. On the contrary, the Talmud, along with the bitterest denunciation states expressly, "He was related to the kingdom."
From The Virgin Birth by A. E. Knoch. An incredible article on explaining all the apparent contradictions of His genealogy.
“No one ever disputed that he was the Son of David.” How would we know this?
So what actually happened?
The time spans alone in Matthew's 3 sets of 14 (not each has 14 btw) make his genealogies impossible
What I never understood either is why Luke. I mean the whole thing is an assertion, but why is it Luke who's tricking the audience here and not Matthew?
I know he doesn't want to talk about it from his own personal opinion, but I'd really like to know how someone with such an authentic understanding of how the Bible was created could remain a Christian in any sense of the word.
What does Daniel believe?
And how does he reconcile that with his obvious intelligence and knowledge to the contrary?
To my understanding having one of the genealogies be Mary's line makes no sense because the big reason for them is to establish Jesus is from the line of David and the Jewish monarchy was patrilineal, so Jesus is disqualified if it comes through mary.
Then again, Joseph wasn't the baby daddy anyway so technically he's disqualified either way.
You say it's not impossible but it sure seems impossible.
This is another tempest in a teapot. The young apologist makes a valid point. Dan dances around it avoiding the obvious - yet he also makes a valid pint; the two genealogies are written as they are according to the rhetorical purpose of the two different authors. That includes the three 14 generations framework. In Jewish numerology, 3s and 7s and multiples of those number had significance. So, Matthew does abbreviate the genealogy to fit his sets of 14-generations framework. That freedom to abbreviate is demonstrated in the OT genealogies as well.
Everyone has two genealogies. In the case of Jesus, the family line in Matthew ran through his adoptive father Joseph. It showed that Jesus had the legal rights of that kingly line. No problem there. It was not an unusual practice in Judaism and not in the Roman world either. There were a lot of adoptions, some for very political purposes.
In the case of Luke, the family line ran through Mary (who else was there?). Luke even tells us that Joseph was not the natural father of Jesus. Mary was not of the kingly line but was of the blood line of David. But Luke really wants to emphasize Jesus' identity with all men, so he takes the family line back to the origin of all men in Adam. No problem there.
Obviously, the genealogies had different sources; each family kept their own different family histories. But what is the problem with that? So do mine. So do yours. The only real contradiction would be if the two genealogies were mutually incompatible. But they are not.
So why doesn't Luke identifies his genealogy with Mary, instead of Joseph? Even when they agree about a specific individual in the genealogy, they differ in his immediate ancestry (like Shealtiel being the son of Jeconiah or Neri)
@@plimpus4668 *why doesn't Luke identifies his genealogy with Mary, instead of Joseph?*
Culturally, the father was the head of the family and his ancestors are usually the line that is significant. As far as I can remember there are no family lines that focus on mother's ancestors. Legally they did not matter. In the case of Luke's genealogy, he does indicate that Joseph was not the father by blood.
But Jesus had no father by blood, so Luke follows the only bloodline Jesus had, the line of Mary. Luke wanted to note both the legal line (Joseph) and the bloodline (Mary) without getting lost in the weeds as we are there.
*Shealtiel*
That intersection of the destruction of the kingly line of Shealtiel and continuation of the line of David is difficult to decipher in Chronicles. It took some fancy footwork on the part of the Jews recording of the genealogies. Add to that the fact of multiple wives and several different lines of descendants coming from one father, and we have a knot that cannot be untied. It was not like Ancestry.com.
But neither is it a contradiction. It is just a puzzle, and not a very important puzzle at that.
@@doncamp1150 the scenario you wrote about only happens if we assume
Luke knew about the gospel of Matthew, which there is no indicative of. Both authors specifically wrote that these were the genealogies of Joseph, and Mary is only mentioned as his wife one time. And the notion that Luke or Matthew didn't mention Mary because the ancestry of the women didn't matter only makes it less likely that Luke's genealogy would actually be from Mary, as mentioning it would not give any type of spiritual or political authority to Jesus. This is also not really the case in Matthew's genealogy, as he mentions the known mother's of certain kings (like Tamar)
Besides, Mary being part of the davidic line is in some way contradicted by the presence of Elizabeth, her cousin, whom Luke attributes levite ancestry as one of the "daughters of Aaron".
About Shealtiel and the other instances of the problem of ancestry: yes, it is a contradiction. Not even the OT authors can really agree about his immediate ancestry, but Luke takes a step further by just assigning a completely different ancestry to him that, contrary to Matthew, does not agree with anything said about Shealtiel in Chronicles, for example. It is very clearly a contradiction, and one that occurs because these family trees have been mostly either fabricated, or reconstructed based on oral traditions and messianic beliefs that don't actually line up with reality.
v@@plimpus4668 *Luke knew about the gospel of Matthew"
They both knew about the genealogies and no surprise if the genealogies preceded the Gospels.
*the notion that Luke or Matthew didn't mention Mary because the ancestry of the women didn't matter only makes it less likely that Luke's genealogy would actually be from Mar*
It would make it unlikely for Matthew. The line of kings might include a woman's name, as is the case for Bathsheba, but she doesn't matter as far as the genealogy is concerned, nor does Tamar. But you will note that Mary is mentioned by Matthew in the very next verse following the genealogy. Matthew did not leave her out.
* Mary being part of the davidic line is in some way contradicted by the presence of Elizabeth, her cousin, whom Luke attributes levite ancestry as one of the "daughters of Aaron"*
At this point the explanation gets a little complex and I've written that up on my blog biblicalmusing.blogspot.com/2024/04/one-of-puzzles-of-gospels-of-matthew.html Suffice to say that genealogies in the Bible and in our own lives are like braided steams.
@@doncamp1150 She is mentioned as being the "wife of Joseph". Luke's genealogy, doesn't even mentions Mary. There is no reason to assume it would've been Mary's genealogical tree, because the davidic line only passes through patrilleneal descent, so Jesus judahite claim would have come from his adoption by Joseph, not from Mary's womb.
Even if we assume mentioning Mary's genealogy is important and affects Jesus claim to Messiah Ben David (and Luke does not cite her, for some reason) and that she was both a Levite and a Judahite, than that runs into conflicts with the other texts of the bible, where Jesus is specifically mentioned as a priest in the line of Melchizedek, due to his lack of aaronic origin and him supersiding the earthly priestly lineage, as citing Mary's line would open a precedent for Jesus to have inherited his claim to the priesthood through his mother, as he did with his davidic status. Additionally, when they go to Bethelhem, Luke only mentions Joseph as being from the line of David, not Mary.
Early christian tradition also never mentions the individual "Heli" as the father of Mary. In second century apocryphal Gospel of James, he is named Joachim. Even when early christians realised the genealogies didn't match, never was it brought up that Luke was writting about Mary, and not Joseph.
Addiotionally, to wrap it up, we know Luke's family line contains made up individuals, as the names "Joseph", "Judah", and "Simon" as personal names never appear in pre-exillic times, and "Levi" is only appears during the maccabean period, meaning the names present in Luke's genealogy are anachoronistic and likely made up.
You kind of hint this direction, but you don't come and explicitly say it, but it comes down to this:
What reason is there to think that Luke's genealogy is for Mary?
Aside from the made up "there's a Jewish tradition," even if that's the case, what is the basis for asserting that Luke is doing that?
For example, I was looking at a website (not going to promote it) where it talks about Matthew's genealogy. Then, when it comes to Luke's genealogy, it says,
"Based on the previous facts, Luke's genealogy must list Jesus' ancestors through his mother"
Really? Why "must" Luke be listing Jesus's ancestors through his mother? Oh, because it doesn't agree with Matthew, and so, obviously, Luke is listing the genealogy of Mary. Duh.
Of course, that doesn't quite explain why, for example, Matthew and Luke have different paths that go from, say, David to Shealtiel.
Matthew has Shealtiel the son of Jeconiah. Luke has Shealtiel the son of Neri. Whoops. Does that mean one of those Luke is referring to Shealtiel's mother, too?
Don't get me wrong. I am very impressed with the content and your brain power. However I want to know how you get the highlight to go over the exact word you are saying at the exact right time. Is that some sort of ai? Some sort of program? All the stuff I see you can pretty much break it up into sentences and that's about it. You do exact words how do you do that?
Bro I swear you two and other people you respond to need to debate live.
Totally unrelated and I’m just a stranger on the internet so pay no heed but you look a lot happier/more lively now that you’re doing TikTok full time, no dark circles under your eyes and stuff, but I’m still not a fan of the beard.
I take it this creator never read The Silmarillion or Lord of the Rings if they think that just presenting a genealogy is evidence of historicity.
cthulhu has a genealogy. that means cthulhu is real
I think people get fixated on irrelevant details sometimes. Like they get lost in the sauce and miss the forest for the trees.
I feel like cats are missing the point of these stories. Also, why is Joseph's lineage important if he's not actually Jesus' father? Y'know what i mean?
The genealogy was important to the authors because of a requirement for the prophesied Messiah to be the direct descendant of someone or other. (I forget who. Probably Abraham I would guess.)
So they stuck the genealogy in there to lend legitimacy to the claim that Jesus was truly the messiah. Otherwise the naysayers would have legitimate grounds to reject the claim.
Actually I think he needed to be a descendant of David.
I think y'all right. It was important to the author(s) and the original intended audiences. And I get that.
But if this is such a glaring contradiction, why didn't anyone correct it? We're seen scribes change, add or remove verses
because apologetic explanations suffice
The dogmas of univocality and inerrancy developed over hundreds of years. The idea that any deviations in the text must be explained away hasn't always been a motivating force in Christian "scholarship".
The gospels of Matthew and Luke may have been written independently, both borrowing from Mark. Thus one author wrote a genealogy with no knowledge of the other author's intentions nor the existence of their gospel.
Why it hasn't been edited at some point from then onward is impossible to say.
The separate gospels were already copied and in decent circulation before they were added together as one canon bible. The cat was out of the bag. Making them match would have been blatant editing to what was now being accepted as "Gid-breathed".
@@alanb8884 But like i mentioned, there have been later changes, for example 1 John 5:7 which adds the trinity concept to the new testament. There is evidence that his verse didn't exist in the earliest greek manuscripts and only appears in the later latin ones.
These two parts of scripture are indeed the lineage of Joseph and the lineage of Mary. Where these two intersect is with Boaz and Ruth. We find this in the book of Ruth where it teaches about the kinsman redeemer.
The reason why Luke 3:23 says “(as was supposed the Son of Joseph)” is because those without the knowledge of the immaculate conception supposed He was the son of Joseph the carpenter as we read in Matthew 13:55-"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" There is not a contradiction here and one needs to consider the whole story of Jesus’ earthly lineages before forming an opinion on the subject.
I don't dismiss the idea that women have been historically marginalized and therefore underrepresented in historical documents such as genealogies.
But when it comes to Jewish genealogy, aren't Jewish people kind of big on matrilineal descent?
I think the author of Mark made an intentional decision to not give Jesus a father. It is just another element contributing to his low status in a patriarchal society.
Great . So ,ancient Jews had a genealogy that goes back to a person who never existed. You can definitely count on .
Joseph has two biologic fathers, smh
As a believer, aren't they just showing us that Jesus is connected to the important figures of Judiasm, such as genealogies that connect Caesar to the founder of Rome or Alexander the Great to Zeus? Why does it have to be a literal genealogy? And if it is connecting to even mythical figures & founders of nations, couldn't then any Jewish person connect their lineage to such personages? I don't understand the need to push the text beyond its limits to make such lists literal.
These people believe in Biblical Inerrancy, and use that belief as an identity marker, keeping others out, and elevating themselves.
Yeah, that’s a good point.
Because you belong to a house by your father. So, either you are a son of David or not.
@@JopJio is that a quote from something?
To this day, some people who convert to Islam adopt genealogies that show their descent from Mohammed. The authors of the gospels are probably just doing the same thing.
Shouldn't the argument stop at the first hurdle ... Joseph wasn't jesus' father??????
Dan, I think you’re being too generous here. The scenarios that are being ginned up here are not even remotely, conceivably possible. That’s not the bar they’re trying to clear. They just provide stories that allow them to ignore the contradictory details and retreat to the comfort of self-righteousness.
Great work as always!
¿When are we going to collectively develop some spiritual maturity and dump this pathetic clinging to the need for belief in the inerrancy, univocality, and/or infallibility of the collected human writings called the Bible?
I don't think this Christian ✝️ even understands the meaning of the word contradiction.
That was covered in part one. Spoiler: he doesn’t.
1:59 Well, categorizing it as PURE speculation isn’t quite right. Each genealogy has its own stark characteristic.
The Jews had a seemingly insurmountable issue regarding the prophesies of the Messiah. He was to be the hero to the throne of David, (first born son of the first born son, etc.) but then during that lineage one king was cursed due to bad behavior and told that the Messiah would not be “of his blood.”
One genealogy goes through the line of kings who were cursed to Joseph. And since Jesus was Joseph’s (adopted) first born son and his heir, he would inherit the “throne of David” through Joseph.
The other genealogy is also in David’s line, but skipped the cursed kings. If this genealogy is Mary’s, then Jesus, who would only have had Mary’s blood as a result of the virgin birth, would have miraculously fulfilled the prophesied while also avoiding the curse.
But I thought Jesus' father was God? 🤔 You know, Mary's virgin birth, and all that. So, no off-spring producing involvement with Joseph. How is Joseph's ancestral lineage relevant at all to Jesus, when Joseph is not the 'baby daddy', God is? God being the Creator limits Jesus's paternal line to God, doesn't it?
If it's as these apologists explain, then speaking with people back in ancient times must've been awfully confusing.
"Yeshua, I'm your grandfather! Your father's father!"
"Heli?"
"No, no. I'm Jacob."
"Mea culpa! When you said you're my father's father, I took that to mean you meant in the sense of Hebraic genealogies by listing only the male names. Plus, you have mom's nose."
1 chronicles 29.18 O Lord God of Abraham Isaac and of Israel our fathers keep this for ever in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of thy people and prepare their heart unto thee. 1 chronicles 28.9 And thou Solomon my son know thou the God of thy father and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind for the Lord searcheth all hearts and understandth all the imaginations of the thoughts if thou seek him he will be found of thee but if thou forsake him he will cast thee off for ever. I have have blocked you once. The was written out of imagination. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost which is the word of God. God is not going to force any one to read and study the word of God. Luke 1.50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. He hath shewed strength with his arm he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. The dragon.
No idea what you’re saying here.
Does any of this even matter since Jesus was supposed to have been the result of "immaculate conception?"
That's not what the Immaculate Conception is
That's one reason for the conjecture that the genealogy in Luke's gospel is Mary's. It matters because the genealogy in Matthew's gospel traces line of succession to David's throne, not biological descent.
@MusicalRaichu I've always felt that how Jesus lived his life was far more important than who his ancestors were, and that people who insist on "proving" that the Bible is factual accurate are trying to claim to be Christians without actually following Christ's example.
@@ethenallen1388 Of course. The point here is that Matthew's gospel was written to a particular audience with the purpose of arguing that Jesus was the Messiah. To this end, the genealogy is presented as evidence that he was in line for David's throne. It's not an issue for us, but it was for the original audience.
This is a genuine question, not at all meant to sound accusatory but I can’t express sincerity over text. Dan, why the Bible and Christianity? Why are there no videos debunking the Quran/Islam or Hinduism or any other religion? What is about Christianity?
*What is it about Christianity that you feel motivated to make these videos that is not also the problem with Islam or Hinduism?
Because his specialty and academic life's work is biblical scholarship.
Why do you want him to critique something like the quran which he has admitted to have no expert knowledge of? He is a BIBLICAL scholar. Not a Quranic or Veda scholar.
If you want to watch critique on those religions and texts, then there are plenty of experts in those fields you can watch rather than whining that people with no qualifications on the texts aren't making videos about those texts.
Dan does what is the most honest approach, sticking to what he knows best.
That’s a cop out.
Especially since he’s made broad statements about deism in general.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Dr McLellan didn't get Professor James Tabor's memo-and Prof Tabor is no apologist!!
And what does the he say?
@@howlrichard1028 that in the GREEK Luke in fact OMITS the word "SON" in connecting Joseph to his father-in-law's genealogy
@@tsemayekekema2918 How does that fix anything? You still got two genealogies that are completely different, but for Joseph instead of Jesus.
It's still a bit of a "need to squint" argument though:
"... υἱός ὡς ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ τοῦ Μαθθὰτ τοῦ Λευὶ τοῦ Μελχὶ ...." is a very strong invitation to consider Joseph as being son of Eli, but only the so-called father of Jesus. The Tabor version invites us to take "so-called" as meaning "just ignore Joseph altogether" then treat Eli as a pet name for Eliaqim who turns up in [EDIT: some early Christian writings] as Joaqim (because God is both El and JHVH) and happens to be Mary's father.
@@howlrichard1028 I said "father-in-law"-that means Luke's genealogy is Mary's geneology (as validated by a liberal critical scholar like Tabor-and that's why I would take it seriously)!
Why would an American know intimate details about their President's ancestry??
I don't mind contradictions, but Luke's genealogy, if he was a traveling companion of Paul, could have originated from the oral geneology that Jesus' family would have used as a theologically symbolic (77-generation) genealogy. In which case, it didn't matter if it wasn't Joseph's historical genealogy-as Dr McLellan forgets, but liberal New Testament expert James Tabor points out-the Greek text literally doesn't explicitly state that Joseph was a son of the man next to him. That deliberate omission of the word ouios (son) could signal a transparent theological fiction.
You are missing the point. The genealogies don't match and can only be reconciled by going to ridiculous lengths. For those who think the bible has NO contradictions, that is a problem. If you are a "liberal" Christian, the whole issue is probably irrelevant.
@@wheat3226 my point is that James Tabor who is a non-christian critical liberal scholar of Early Christianity has validated the correct claim that Luke was talking of Mary's geneology afterall-even though he metaphorically inserts Joseph but refuses to say the man is Joseph's father in the GREEK (English translations introduce the word SON that isn't really there).
There're plenty of old testament passages where you can swim in a sea of real contradictions - this isn't just one of them!
@@tsemayekekema2918 From the context we can understand that the text was likely implying that Joseph was the son. James Tabor also talked about how Jesus could have been fathered by a Roman soldier known as Panthera.
From what I understand, both of his speculations are not taken seriously within academia.
If Luke had been interested in establishing patrilineal descent to David, he would not have done what he did. That descent would have had to have gone to David through Solmon. It did not. Jesus had a blood connection to David and that is all.
Luke's genealogy is decidedly NO-JEWISH.
*if the blood ancestry of his mother has any bearing on his claim to religious life, then he wouldn't have to be called a "priest of Melchizedek", as he has levite blood.*
*YOU DIDN'T READ HEBREWS 7*. It is that exact point that is being made. Luke never suggests Jesus is a priest or of Levitical linage by official legal descent. Neither does he in Acts. In fact, no NT author does. JESUS IS NOT A LEVITICAL PRIEST. He is better than that. He is a priest appointed by God. (Hebrews 7:11) He replaces the Levitical line.
This whole idea is cooked up somewhere in your head.
I assume that you know the seven nations that were commanded by Yahweh to be destroyed one of which was the Hittites and another the Canaanites; so when the David character had Uriyah The Hittite killed in a battle he was punished where upon the sword would never leave his house but David should have been commended for doing the right thing. Also the commandment was that if they gave their daughters to these nations their hearts would be turned away from Yahweh so what was Batsheva doing being married to a Hittite?
Numbers 21:3 States that the Canaanites were destroyed completely but apparently not because a Canaanite woman shows up on Matt. 15:22 desiring mercy; Num. 33:55 Describes the penalty for having mercy on these people in that there would be pricks in their eyes and thorns in their sides if Israel failed to drive these people out of the land. Either this God is a psychotic or the whole thing is a lie or perhaps a different god. The Torah says nothing about Jerusalem or a temple there, but the commandment was to place the Kodesh upon The mount of cursing Ebal: Deut. 27. When you look at the life of Jesus in the New Testament there is not one thing that he does that is in obedience to the Torah, for example: the Torah says that during the Passover that everyone would be standing and eating in haste with their staff in their hand but that isn’t what Jesus did at the pass over, he sat down without a staff and not guarded for travel.
There was an everlasting covenant between Phineas the high priest and Yahweh a covenant of the priesthood and of peace forever, olam ve olam. Numbers 25:12-13.
The anointed priest was Mashiak Leviticus 4:3, 4:5, 4:16, and 6:22 H4899 Mashiach/anointed.
Dan. Your beard has gotten scraggly. Fix it, please.😊
Qur'an says Israel 🇮🇱 43 times no Palestine in Quran.
Muhammad originally prayed towards Jerusalem before Mecca Kabba was built and never wrote anything about Palestine Palestinians in Quran.
Abu Bakar never mentioned Palestine.
*The King James Bible **_was_** at one time a literary masterpiece without blemish. What I mean is there were no spelling, grammar or punctuation errors in it. I have a short film in my playlist on how that was acheived. Now, they're on every page! And there are MANY word switches too! Satan has **_supernaturally_** attacked it more than any other translation, but all of them in **_EVERY LANGUAGE_** have been destroyed in the fulfillment of prophecy! Plus all concordances, encyclopedias, dictionaries, history books, the oldest manuscripts and the Dead Sea scrolls have been miraculously changed to match!*
*Not every word, Satan is too smart for that and he understands that rats won't eat pure poison so .05% is added to 99.95% corn. The rats love it because they can't taste the poison ... and perish for lack of knowlege! If you ever needed to obey God's commandment to ''prove all things'' and investigate something, this is it!!!*
*Our Father said to "prove all things" and you better obey Him on this thing especially. I have an exceptional memory, I remember my third birthday party and can draw an accurate picture of my baby stroller. I'm 71, was saved when I was 10 and **_had been_** reading only the **_exact same copy_** of the King James bible since 1961. (I am not a king James onlyist, but now I'm glad I never read any others or I might not have noticed the changes as soon.) I memorized many scriptures out of it over the years and I absolutely **_know_** that the word **_demons_** used to be all through it. But today that word is not anywhere in there! It was replaced with **_devils._** And the only place I've ever read the word **_wineskins_** was in my bible, but it's not in it any more either. It was replaced with **_bottles._** And now **_unicorns, easter, matrix, castles, damsels, stuff, corn, colleges, banks, employment, schools, missles, tires, mufflers, manifolds, engines, highways, suburbs, pavement, presidents, doctors, pilots, sheriffs, beer, dumb ass, India, Spain, Italy, ferryboats, couches_** and lots of other words are in my bible that I never saw in it my whole life! Many of these words are anachronisms (THEY DIDN'T EVEN EXIST IN 1611!!!!) It never talked about men with milk in their breasts or fathers nursing babies either, but now it does! Isaiah 11:6 used to say the **_lion_** shall lie down with the lamb, not the **_wolf_** shall also dwell with the lamb! Lion represents Jesus and wolf is associated with Satan! There are 15 films in my playlist with plenty of undeniable "residue" showing that ''wolf'' has replaced "Lion". (Residue is what they call all the things Satan missed as he was changing our world.) Luke 17:34 used to say "two shall be in one bed, one shall be taken and the other one left", but now it says "two **_men_** shall be in one bed...! And the following verse said "two women shall be grinding at the mill together..." and now it just says "two women shall be **_grinding together_** ...! So now the bible makes it sound like some homosexuals are going to be ''raptured"! BTW **_nobody's going to be "raptured" until after the tribulation. The Wrath of God follows._*
But *this is the BIGGIE,* in Luke 19:27 it has Jesus saying "And those mine enemies that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and *SLAY THEM BEFORE ME!"* It did say _eshew_ them away! This change makes Christians sound like radical extremists!! *Millions of Christians will be killed because of this verse!!!* And I know that this is a parable, but the king Jesus was talking about was Himself, the King of Kings!
*I memorized the Lord's prayer as a boy because Jesus told us to say it, and I have said it tens of thousands of times, and it absolutely did not say **_which_** art in heaven, it said **_who_** art in heaven, it didn't say **_in earth,_** it was **_on earth._** And it now says forgive us our **_debts_** instead of our **_trespasses!!!_*
*God has sent His strong delusion to all of the people that never received the love of the truth! What's scary is, so far that appears to be almost all believers, and **_pastors!!!_** This incredible phenomenon they're calling the Mandela effect is absolutely real, but it should actually be called the Daniel 7:25 effect because that's where God said He would give the Antichrist power to do this, (''change times and laws''). I first became aware of some of the bible changes in 2014 before I ever had a computer or had heard of the Mandela effect. But since 2016 I've watched many hundreds of videos on the subject, and saved some of the best and most important ones for proving our bibles have been changed and pointing out all the places this was talked about in end time prophecies that we had previously misinterpreted in my playlist which you can see by 👉 typing into RUclips (PROOF OF BIBLE CHANGE RESIDUE JUNKIE 1)* 👈
*By the time you have seen all these films which point out the many misinterpreted prophecies being fulfilled **_supernaturally,_** you will have grown MUCH closer to Jesus the never changing Word of God and your faith will be 1,000% stronger ... GUARANTEED!!!!!!!*
*Even though I will no longer read any bible, (unless Jesus changes them back), I continue to study what God's word said by seeing what scriptures have been changed with proof of what was originally written. I urge you all to do the same, while you still can, because when the lights go out, all we'll have then is hard copies of the bible Satan wants us reading! At that point Amos **8:12** will be fulfilled where it says we will no longer be able to find His words anywhere again.*
*This is without question the biggest and most important event since the day of Pentecost! When you see absolute proof that the miraculous fulfillment of end time prophecies is happening with your own eyes and how close we are to our Savior's return, it's the most faith strengthening and exciting thing that you've ever experienced!*
*God bless you all!!!* ❤✝️💪🏻
*P.S. After people have taken all of the required 💉's, they will apply a quantum dot invisible tattoo to their head or hand, but anyone who has had just one has a bluetooth mac # that can be read by any smart phone and when you walk through the deal at an airport they know if you have it. The no buying or selling is happening incrementally and will be complete when cash is abolished and worship can be defined as "to fear, obey and trust in someone or something" which is what they are doing with the Beast System and the Image of the Beast, (NWO and TV!). They also now have triple helix DNA, are no longer human and if they have children they won't be human either! Yes, this absolutely is it, and👉 if you write me at the address on my about page👈 I'll send you 15 **_shocking_** films that will PROVE it to anyone who has the courage to watch them.*
🎯💯Truth! And so sad that most people won't know it until it's too late.😢
i guess we'll never have the correct knowledge to be saved. bummer.
@@senorbb2150 *If that's your choice. I said where you can still see God's words.*
@@residuejunkie4321 😂 It's cute that you think it's "God's words". No critical investigation done whatsoever.
We study the Bible to build faith.
What matters is the resurrection.
This guy's heart is in the wrong place.
_You_ study the Bible to build faith. _I_ study the Bible so when people of "faith" talk absolute nonsense to me I know where it came from.
@@digitaljanus so?
You reveal the nature of your heart. Your choice. Your loss.
Fair enough, but I would argue that in the long run falsehood only weakens the foundation of faith.
Once you discover that the “salesman” has lied to you in order to close the sale, how can you possibly have the same level of trust in anything else he says?
@mrq6270 what lie?
The initial mission of the apostles was to convince Jews that Jesus was the Messiah.
The Jews rejected Christ even knowing he rose from the dead.
This rejection was prophesied, BTW.
In spite of the Jewish rejection, the gospel went to the world fulfilling the prophesies in Hosea.
Christianity changed the world.
The Great Tribulation awaits.
God keeps his word.
@@cedward5718I don't think that was the winner comeback you thought it was. It sure does reveal their heart vs. yours, you want to keep everyone controlled and ignorant while they want to defend themselves. That sounds like your loss, not theirs.