Contra Tillnow67 Episode Two: Conflicting Genealogies?

[GuineaPigDan]

@ 4:45

I was raised Catholic and in Catholic tradition, the name of Mary's father was Joachim, not Heli. Does the apologist you were quoting address this? Did Joachim change his name, or since the geneologies omit names, Heli might actually be Mary's grandfather?

[KabaneTheChristian]

@GuineaPigDan

This video was made while I was still protestant. I am Orthodox now, and the names of the Blessed Virgin's parents are St. Joachim and St. Anne. We know from the Gospel of St. Matthew that there are gaps in the genealogies, so perhaps this is one of the gaps.

[RPGcollector1980]

Get a haircut man. You look like a shhpdog. You can't even see out of that mop.

[PopovicRP]

Makes me sad, your like still a kid and yet your taking religion this seriously. Do you talk to your friends like this if they do something bad. Seriously, if you were in front of me now and talked like that I would punch you out.

[KabaneTheChristian]

If they do something bad? Uh, this video isn't a moral lesson. It's an analysis of Tillnow's arguments.

[PopovicRP]

I realize that and I ain't just talking about this video, I'm talking about the majority of your videos. Religion makes me sick, telling people how to run their lives and if we don't we'll be in eternal suffering in hell while those who did everything right get to go to Heaven, but God still loves you so he sent you to Hell. Awesome! -.-

[mooglecharmed]

People who talk about how "religion makes them sick" make me sick. Go preach about how people should preach somewhere else. Git!

[Kabane52]

Well then you are free to cry because you think religion is so terrible. Unfortunately, your appeals to emotion have no relevance.

[omghai2u]

dont listen to these fags religion is an argument from ignorance, fuck that

[RPGcollector1980]

your a real loser

[leiapeison]

great video. god bless

[KingHeathen]

well, all you basically did was repeat back some of the other explanations already covered and tried to justify it. But, I again apply Occam's Razor.

I continue to focus strong emphasis here that we keep talking about Matthew and Luke as they both came around the same time but from different areas and covered a story not given to them in Mark. It's like asking two writers to make up a prequel to a movie. They'll each take a different approach...and this is what we find here as well.

[KabaneTheChristian]

Yes, I defended the explanation that Tillnow tried to refute, not seeing how that is unacceptable. The fact that the genealogies are from both Mary and Joseph is attested by some early church writers. Harmonization is a key principle of history.

[justintempler]

"The FACT that the genealogies are from both Mary and Joseph is attested by SOME early church writers. HARMONIZATION is a key principle of history."

fact,some, harmonization. that thinking would mean Islam is true also. Your argument is flawed.

Looks like Wayne(Tillnow) will be making his response to this video. :)

[KabaneTheChristian]

Uh, no. Some things are impossible to harmonize.

[RationalRat]

No, nothing is impossible to harmonize when you have a determined follower of a religion. In fact, investigating the apologetics of another religion may be a way to see the same arbitrariness that you are using to defend Christianity.

[KabaneTheChristian]

No, there are some things which at a base level are just contradictory. If the Bible said once "And the virgin will be with child" and in another place "Joseph lay with his wife and fathered Jesus" then we would have a definite contradiction.

And I have looked at Islamic apologetics.

[RationalRat]

Nonsense. It would be easy enough to just reinterpret "virgin" as referring to someone other than Mary or that Joseph fathered Jesus in the sense of taking care of him but not in the biological sense. "Reconciling contradictions" is really easy when any answer will do.

[KingHeathen]

I understand that you FEEL like you defended it. Your points are the same ones he already shot down.

Your suggestions seems FAR less likely than what I've already pointed out. Do you know of any other genealogy in the Bible that used the in-law's blood line?

Your argument struggles to show that the genealogies are "plausibly" non-contradictory...but proves nothing. But to be fair, I grant you "plausibility" (but not VERY plausible and surely not "probable.") My scenario is more probable.

[NotWhollySane]

Oops. Nevermind all that stuff below Kabane. I should have addressed my previous comment to thatchristian. I don't know why I typed your name.

[justintempler]

KabaneTheChristian "The fact that the genealogies are from both Mary and Joseph is attested by some early church writers."

I have evidence of the opposite. Try reading The Ecclesiastal History written by Eusibius. He was a main source of church history during the time of Constantine.

His explanation was Matthew was biological geneaology, and Luke was the legal geneaology. So if the biological father died the brother became the legal father.

The explanation is twisted. LOL

[justintempler]

google

"The Epistle to Aristides"

the last line reads:

"Matthan, descended from Solomon, begat Jacob. Matthan dying, Melchi, descended from Nathan, begat Hell by the same wife. Therefore Hell and Jacob are uterine brothers. Hell dying childless, Jacob raised up seed to him and begat Joseph, his own son by nature, but the son of Hell by law. Thus Joseph was the son of both"

[NotWhollySane]

So.... Luke's list was of Mary, and Mathew's list was of Joseph, and the lineages crossed several times so that some of the same names appear in both lineages. Does Kabane have any evidence outside of the bible that the lineages crossed? No. He is pulling explainations out of his arse with zero real world evidence to back them up. He is like a defense attorney that claims his client has an alabye without any evidence to back up the alabye, other than his client's testamony. Worthless!

[KabaneTheChristian]

I never said the lineages crossed. Why don't you actually watch the video.

[NotWhollySane]

I never said that you said anything about the lineages crossing in the video. If you don't believe in lineages crossing then what is your explaination of the same names appearing in the lists? I was under the impression that you thought the lineages crossed. I may have accidentally concocted a strawman here. Just what is your explaination for the same names appearing. That way I can properly address it. Sorry for the confusion.

[jsnfx989]

When are you going to post more videos as Kabane52?

Also, do you ever debate as KabaneTheChristian?

[ThatChristian]

As for that last one, I am not entirely convinced that it is so absurd that a two lineages could converge and then branch out again. Actually, it seems to make perfect sense if you think about it.

[RationalRat]

It's actually impossible when you are only considering the paternal line, which is the way biblical genealogies worked. If you are considering both parents, then yes, it can and does happen all the time

[justintempler]

I don't know how to stress this enough. The failure of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke to fufill the messianic prophecy is one of the MAIN REASONS the Jews reject Jesus as the messiah. Without this cornerstone any "other prophecies" that were fufilled by Jesus are worthless.

As a Christian you can still believe by faith but you can't use genealogy to prove your point.

[justintempler]

Matthew's genealogy has an additional problem. In Jeremiah, Jeconiah is cursed.

Jer 22:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Joseph is of the seed of Jeconiah and therefore his son forbidden to be a sucessor to the throne.

[cre8ivmind]

There could have been more than one man named Jeconiah.

[justintempler]

Great so by removing this Jeconiah you removed the connection to Solomon.

The Messiah must be a descendant of David and Solomon so all you've done is remove one problem and create another.

[DonusAmbrose]

The Messiah doesn't need to be the descendant of Solomon.

The line was ruined by Jeconiah, and even the Hasmonean dynasty didn't even bother looking for a descendant of Solomon, which is pretty odd considering the fact that you claim their must be a descendant.

Let's look at what scripture says: "If your sons observe my covenant, the laws I shall teach them, THEIR sons, in turn, shall sit forever on your throne."

(Psalm 132)

[justintempler]

Psalms 132 establishes they must come from David's seed, so far so good.

now read

I Chronicles 22

&

1 Chronicles 28 5 And of all my sons, (for the LORD hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel.

Yes, The Messiah DOES need to come from Solomon

[DonusAmbrose]

You just proved to me that you didn't read Psalm 132:

"If your sons observe my covenant, the laws I shall teach them, THEIR sons, in turn, shall sit forever on your throne."

Notice how if David's sons observe God's covenant, THEIR sons will be able to sit on his throne?

THEIR sons?

[justintempler]

1.God made his promise to David. (God hasn't chosen Solomon yet)

2.Then God chooses Solomon (one of David's sons)

Once Solomon is chosen it passes to his sons, You can't pass the throne from brother to brother. or from son to uncle. It always passes father to son.

Stop getting hung up on the word their, sons over multiple generations can also mean "their sons".

[DonusAmbrose]

Actually, that's incorrect. Jeconiah passed the throne to his uncle, Zedekiah.

You're just passing off YHVH's promise in Psalm 132 as something that would be later changed, which it hasn't.

It's amazing that you reference 1 Chronicles 28, because it destroys your point:

'I will establish his kingdom forever, IF he resolutely performs My commandments and My ordinances, as is done now.'

Solomon fell into idolatry, and as a result, his line only lasted until Jeconiah.

[justintempler]

King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia exiled Jeconiah. With no heir to the throne Zedekiah ascended the throne and became the last King of Judah.

Again Psalm 132 comes into play

""If your sons observe my covenant, the laws I shall teach them, THEIR sons, in turn, shall sit forever on your throne."

"THEIR sons, in turn,shall SIT FOREVER.."

Zedekiah and his sons did not sit forever did he? The right to pass on the throne died with Jeconiah, that's why Matthew uses him. :=0

[justintempler]

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do].

Matthew and Luke should have heeded the advice.

[KabaneTheChristian]

Justin-

He's talking about ascetism.

[DonusAmbrose]

Nope, note: "If your sons observe my covenant, the laws I shall teach them..."

Also, read 1 Kings 9 and 1 Chronicles 28 which speak of a CONDITIONAL promise to the line of Solomon.

It wasn't fulfilled.

[justintempler]

The problem with 2 Jeconiahs. is in Jeremiah 22 the Jeconiah here is already a King, so he is David's seed. I Chronicles 3 gives the genealogy establishing Jeconiah plus Salathiel & Zorobabel so they are one in the same as listed in Matthew.

Luke is smart enough to not mention Jeconiah when he mentions his sons Salathiel & Zorobabel but screws up by using Nathan instead of Solomon.

[justintempler]

You still can't use Mary's genealogy. Even if it could be maintained that a family line could be passed on through the mother, Mary herself was not from a legitimate messianic family. The messiah must be a descendant of King David through his son Solomon see (II Samuel 7:12-13; I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:10, 28:4-7). So using Luke's genealogy still doesn't work.

[M0neyp0t]

Unlike the Greek texts, the Eastern Peshitta doesn't have conflicting genealogies:

w ww(.)peshitta(.)org/bethgazza/­Gabra(.)htm

w ww(.)peshitta(.)org/pdf/Mattic­h1(.)pdf

It's amazing what one mistranslated word can do. :O

[LittleTruckingBozo]

Grate job. Fav'ed

[RationalRat]

The claim that Luke's genealogy is really Mary's has absolutely no evidence in Luke itself, so there is really no reason to take it seriously. If the only way you can infer what is meant by an article in the Washington Post is by reading another article in the New York Times, you have a very poorly written article. It's no different with Matthew and Luke. No first century reader of Luke would have had any clue that it was anything other than a genealogy through Joseph.

[DonusAmbrose]

Even Irenaeus shows us that Luke's genealogy was of Mary, and Matthew's of Joseph.

Read 3:21:9 and 3:22:3

[RationalRat]

If you were reading Luke's genealogy only and knew nothing of Matthew, would you think that it was Joseph's or Mary's?

It doesn't surprise me that early church father who have read both would say one was Joseph's and one was Mary's as a way of resolving the differences, but there really is no evidence whatsoever in the text themselves.

[Kabane52]

You should read them in context of other writings of the time. You should interpret historical writings in light of other historical writings.

[RationalRat]

Well, sort of. If you mean that you should understand historical writings in the context of the time in which it was written, I absolutely agree. If you mean that Luke wrote his gospel assuming that his readers would have Matthew and would compare his with Matt. and infer that he was obviously referring to Mary even though he didn't say anything at all in his own gospel, I couldn't disagree more.

[mfeldy22]

DonusAmbrose: what book of Irenaeus are you referring to?

[DonusAmbrose]

Read Book 3, chapter 21, section 9

And Book 3, chapter 22, section 3

[justintempler]

DonusAmbrose "Even Irenaeus shows us that Luke's genealogy was of Mary, and Matthew's of Joseph. Read 3:21:9 and 3:22:3"

OK I read it. Nowhere does it say that. You're reading something in to it that isn't there. It does say Mary has the "womb" of David but never connects the geneaology in Luke to Mary.

[DonusAmbrose]

3:22:3:

"Wherefore Luke points out that the pedigree which traces the generation of our Lord back to Adam contains seventy-two generations..."

Yep, I'm reading into the text. Obviously it doesn't say that Luke's geneology is of Christ.

/sarcasm

[justintempler]

Iknow it's Luke's :-D

The seventy two generations trace back to Adam who was born without orignal sin. Luke is trying to tell us Jesus is the "second Adam" so he too must be born without original sin. Mary is being talked about here because she is a virgin and being a virgin is a requirement in order for Jesus to be the "second Adam". THAT is the reason she is mentioned.

It is not saying Luke's genealogy is that of Mary.

[DonusAmbrose]

Luke's genealogy is of Jesus (born of Mary).

Matthew's genealogy is of Joseph.

I gave you the citations of Irenaeus' explicit statements regarding BOTH genealogies.

There is no other conclusion.

[justintempler]

mfeldy22 "DonusAmbrose: what book of Irenaeus are you referring to?"

"Five Books of S. Irenaeus Against Heresies"

available in pdf format from google books

[RationalRat]

You make the claim that the 3 14 generation division was merely a memory device. But using a memory device does not mean that the information is therefore meant to be incomplete or selective. Using the memory device HOMES on the lake to memorize the five great lakes (Huron, Ontario, Michigan, Erie, Superior) is only a good device because it enables you to memorize all of the Great Lakes. An author can't accurately make the claim that "all" of the generations were 14 if there were more.

[Kabane52]

Um, it was perfectly acceptable to leave out ancestors in order to form memory devices. Remember my point about Jesus, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

[RationalRat]

Not if you make the claim that they were "all" the generations. If Matthew had divided the list in to groups of his personal favorite ancestors, you might have a point.

[Kabane52]

He's obviously referring to all the generations he had listed. He is emphasizing the pattern of 14,14,14, for memory purposes. You are reading too much into one word.

[RationalRat]

No, that's not obvious at all. But amazingly, even if we assume that this was what he meant, you STILL have an error, because you don't have 3 groups of 14, no matter how you count.

[justintempler]

Yep,

He puts all the emphasis on fourteen then gives us 14,14,13 LOL

[RationalRat]

I've always contended that if I was allowed to use the same techniques inerrantists use to resolve biblical contradictions on other literature, it would be literally impossible to show any two passages, from whatever sources, are contradictory. I think you demonstrated that here. I'll explain why.

[KabaneTheChristian]

My "technique" is looking at ancient forms of recording genealogies and applying them to the genealogies in the Bible.

[RationalRat]

Ahhh, but you didn't do that. There really is no evidence that "begat", when used in a genealogy, is ever meant to mean anything other than a father-son relationship.

[Kabane52]

"There really is no evidence that "begat", when used in a genealogy, is ever meant to mean anything other than a father-son relationship."

(Matthew 1:1)  The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

COUGH.

[RationalRat]

LOL, Kabane, but no dice. Matthew 1:1 was a summary statement, not the genealogy itself. No different than a family patriarch at a family reunion referring to everyone (children, grandchildren, great grandchildren) as his children. But if we did a genealogy of him, it would still show his immediate children, their children, etc. It was no different with ancient genealogies.