Re: Contra Tillnow67 Episode Two: Conflicting Genealogies?

A link to Stafford's quote
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• tillnow67
• kabane
• inerrancy
• biblical
• errors
• contradictions
• lineages
• atheist
• christian

[RRSAlabama]

KabaneTheDishonest

[KingHeathen]

Good to see you back, Wayne!

[GuineaPigDan]

Don't forget that Luke's gospel says that Elizabeth and her husband, Mary's sister and brother-in-law, are decended from Aaron (Luke 1:5), which would mean that Mary is of the tribe of Levi, and not David's tribe, which was Judah. This is further evidence that Mary can't be decended from David, unless you want to argue that Mary was adopted or she was of a mixed lineage, the later strains credulity since Levi son of Jacob is not listed in Luke's geneology.

[SirLawliet]

There's no evidence for the apologetic explanation, so it's more of an ad hoc justification of the text than a solid point against the contradiction. The explanation is useless in disproving the contradiction because possibilities disprove nothing, except to attempt to cultivate doubt regarding the contradiction, despite the fact that due to a lack of evidence, it's not a solid point.

[430592689]

I do not see why you choose to forsake The Lord. Is it that hard to believe. Good video in fact, but why? Do you not know what is at steak? Do video on this!

[gambleor]

Despite that, if the geneology in Luke is Mary's, then that would be Jesus' physical tie to the seed of David through Nathan.

[gambleor]

I don't see why you would even insist on fighting his explanation here. You said yourself, there's no evidence to support that Mary had no brothers, but there's no evidence to the contrary either. If it's plausible, why refute it? Perhaps you don't want to believe it? In any case, Kabane made a valid point. If Mary had no brothers, her husband would be included as the heir of Heli through marital bond.

[blasphemite]

lol youre a lil funny in this one :D

[migkillertwo]

ahh I see, it appears that Kabane was defending biblical inerrancy. my motivations would mainly be for defending the essential historicity of the bible rather than inerrancy.

This is probably the core disagreement between the two of us.

[migkillertwo]

"if you're writing them down, why would you need a memory device?"

we need to approach the Gospels remembering that these would not have been read alone in a candle-lit room but rather performed in public to Christian audiences. as Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory Boyd noted, these Gospels are oral performances pieces.

good video nonetheless, I had some laughs, and you are, for a skeptic, quite intelligent.

[NotWhollySane]

kabanethecornfuzzled

[JFZcafe]

This is a slam dunk, man. Luke was using only first names while Matthew was using special nicknames; both were talking about the same people. Isn't it obvious? We know they're the same people because its the Word of God, which can't be wrong. If you don't like that one here's another. Matthew was only using random names, like as a placeholder, until he could go back and fill in the correct name later after doing more research. Sadly, Matthew died an untimely death. Glad you're back Wayne.