Replies

Anyway, sorry, no, no fallacy in the two-genealogies solution for Joseph. Your so-called "bigger issue" looks to me like a "look over here" tactic. We addressed your supposed contradiction by showing the text was both accurate and self-consistent across both Gospels. Since that is the basis of your "larger issue," you failed to show in this case the discrepancy required to prove the bigger issue. If you wish to make your conclusion, you have to succeed in making the supporting premises work, and you have not done that. There is therefore no reason for us to proceed to consideration of your conclusion.

BTW, as an attorney, I don't look for testimony from multiple eyewitnesses to match up perfectly to a casual reading. In fact, if a good attorney sees that sort of "perfection," it is a red flag they are dealing with false testimony. In real testimony, people color it with their own perspective of the event, their own vocabulary, and their own view of the world. Getting and reconciling testimony from multiple sources gives the event a three-dimensional reality that is virtually impossible to fake. In such a context, most "discrepancies" are normally this kind of natural variance between individuals, not true discrepancies of fact. Each is true, but reporting things in a slightly different breakdown of the sequence. But taken as a whole, it is still the same sequence, and the right kind of so-called "discrepancies" actually help prove the truth of it..

Sorry Councilor, but I won't be hiring you any time soon. Relying on the ignorance of the person you're debating and not doing due diligence on your sources is terrible way for a lawyer to present a case.

The site you quote from is an apologist site that strains logic to answer this dilemma.

First they talk about carrying on the family name and cite Numbers 36. In that time period there were no family names only family inheritances, property. Numbers 36 is about the transfer of property.

Second, in that time period and in the law of Moses you don't just change genealogies, you couldn't. Your exact genealogy meant something. From your birthright, to blessings passed down from father to son. Those genealogies were kept exact through their records.

There were prophesies regarding the exact linage of Jesus.

So, no it was not proper to refer to Joseph as the son of two different fathers. It's a mistake. Just because you read it on the internet doesn't make it true.

Probably what really happened was, one of the Apostle's just mixed up Mary's father with Joseph's father and wrote the wrong name down. He made the same mistake with names and faces that every human being makes.

If you have a healthy and realistic understanding of the Bible, you can understand how this little mistake memory could happen. Doesn't change the validity of the text, just human frailty.

If you have the perfection of God is linked to the perfection of the Bible view, you get a site like you quoted from. Where you have to jump through hoops and go to great lengths to explain away such simple things like I stated above. And to any reasonable person it looks ridiculous.

And to any reasonable person it looks ridiculous.

Romans 8: (ESV)

1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.
8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

That's about all for now...from the golden calf people and especially for you.

Probably what really happened was...

Are you SURE?

Where you have to jump through hoops and go to great lengths to explain away such simple things like I stated above. And to any reasonable person it looks ridiculous.

Much better to just to just IGNORE the hoops...

In Mormonism, the concept of divinity centers around an idea of "exaltation" and "eternal progression": the idea that mortals themselves may become gods and goddesses in the afterlife, be rulers of their own heavenly kingdoms, have spirit children, and increase in power and glory forever as a result of their posterity. Mormons understand that there are many gods and goddesses in the cosmos, including a Heavenly Mother. However, the three persons of the Christian Trinity (God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost) are to be the only objects of worship.

Exaltation and eternal progression[edit]

Main article: Exaltation (Latter Day Saints)

In Mormonism, the goal of each adherent is to achieve "exaltation" via the atonement of Jesus, as a result of which they inherit all the attributes of God the Father, including godhood. Mormons believe that these people will become gods and goddesses in the afterlife, and will have "all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge".^[6] Moreover, Mormons teach that exalted people will live with their earthly families and also "have spirit children".^[7] Their posterity will continue to grow forever.

According to the belief, exaltation is available only to those who have earned the highest "degree" of the celestial kingdom.^[8] As prerequisites for this "greatest gift of God",^[9] adherents believe that either in this life or the afterlife, they must become "perfect" and they must participate in all the required ceremonies. Though not necessary, their exaltation can be "sealed upon them" by the Holy Ghost via the Second Anointing. One of the key qualifications for exaltation is being united in a celestial marriage to an opposite-sex partner via the ordinance of sealing,^[10]^[11] either in person or by proxy after they have died. In the 19th century, some leaders of the LDS Church taught* that participation in plural marriage was also a requirement of exaltation.^[12] The LDS Church abandoned the practice over a century ago and teaches that only a single celestial marriage is required for exaltation.^[13]

* it's in the Scriptures: D&C 132:16-25

Some modern LDS Church leaders have taught that there are people living on other earths. For instance, apostle Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) wrote:

"We are not the only people that the Lord has created. We have brothers and sisters on other earths. They look like us because they, too, are the children of God and were created in his image, for they are also his offspring."^[40]

and

"...the great universe of stars has multiplied beyond the comprehension of men. Evidently each of these great systems is governed by divine law; with divine presiding Gods, for it would be unreasonable to assume that each was not so governed."^[41]

Apostle Neal A. Maxwell (1926–2004) wrote, "we do not know how many inhabited worlds there are, or where they are. But certainly we are not alone."^[42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_cosmology

First they talk about carrying on the family name and cite Numbers 36. In that time period there were no family names only family inheritances, property. Numbers 36 is about the transfer of property.

Wrong. They cite more than Numbers 36, although it still applies. Have you ever studied property law? If not, you need to know that the concept of inheritance and lineage are closely connected, and especially because they revolve around property. But what is property? Is it always some physical object? Or could it be virtually anything thing transmissible from one generation to the next? Ah yes, the latter. And in the case of the lineage of Jesus, we have a special problem in that regard.

But first, let's look at how this actually worked:

Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph: and these are the names of his daughters; Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah. And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons. Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father. And Moses brought their cause before the LORD. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it: and it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgment, as the LORD commanded Moses.
(Numbers 27:1-11)

And

And the chief fathers of the families of the children of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near, and spake before Moses, and before the princes, the chief fathers of the children of Israel: And they said, The LORD commanded my lord to give the land for an inheritance by lot to the children of Israel: and my lord was commanded by the LORD to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother unto his daughters. And if they be married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then shall their inheritance be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and shall be put to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they are received: so shall it be taken from the lot of our inheritance. And when the jubile of the children of Israel shall be, then shall their inheritance be put unto the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they are received: so shall their inheritance be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers. And Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of the LORD, saying, The tribe of the sons of Joseph hath said well. This is the thing which the LORD doth command concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry. So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe: for every one of the children of Israel shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers. Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; but every one of the tribes of the children of Israel shall keep himself to his own inheritance. Even as the LORD commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad: For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married unto their father's brothers' sons: And they were married into the families of the sons of Manasseh the son of Joseph, and their inheritance remained in the tribe of the family of their father.
(Numbers 36:1-12)

I invite you (and any lurkers) to review these passages and note how tracing the line within the familial tribe was a key part of the legislation. That familial tribalism is preserved in the name of the tribal father. Granted, it was not quite like our highly rigid first name/last name arrangement in modern English culture, but from a legal perspective it had the same effect, and could even be rightly understood as a bundle of rights that inhere in the tribal father's name.

So while I am glad to concede the human authors of the article are not inerrant, in this matter they are correct, even in describing it as being under a family name. Joseph is in the path of legal inheritance through the line of Mary by marriage, and is therefore a legal son of Heli, even though a begotten son of Jacob. This is of critical importance, as we shall see momentarily.

Second, in that time period and in the law of Moses you don't just change genealogies, you couldn't. Your exact genealogy meant something. From your birthright, to blessings passed down from father to son. Those genealogies were kept exact through their records.

The genealogies as between Matthew and Luke did not change. They diverged at Solomon, and reunited under Joseph and Mary. This is the way it had to be. Remember that God's Messiah was to come from the line of David, in answer to God's promise to David that his line would be represented on the throne of Israel forever:

The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore.
(Psalms 132:11-12)

As to the conditionality of the covenant to David, we know from prophecy that the Messiah would indeed be from the Davidic line:

And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
(Isaiah 11:1)

However, there was a problem, and at first it would seem impossible to solve. Jechonias was a king in the line of David, but was so displeasing to the Lord it was prophesied no son of his would ever sit on the throne of David, which the Messiah must surely do:

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.
(Jeremiah 22:30)

So was this a mistake? Did God make a promise, only to become unable to fulfill it because of the sins of one man? God forbid!

Go back to the lineage in Luke, and remember what God said in Jeremiah, no "seed" of Jechonias, no physical, begotten descendant of Jechonias, could ever be the Messiah. But also remember that one's inheritance is not purely physical, but a bundle of rights passed by the principle of a de facto legal sonship according to the law of Moses as shown in Numbers 27 and 36.

Matthew tracks the line through Solomon, including Jechonias. But Luke tracks the line through Nathan, Solomon's brother, whose line never was under the curse of Jechonias. Thus, Jesus was both the inheritor of the legal right to the Davidic throne through Joseph's physical father Jacob, and of the physical line of David by law through Joseph's father-in-law Heli, thus resolving brilliantly the ancient riddle of how any physical son of David could become Messiah after the Davidic line through Jechonias had become cursed. God is an excellent attorney. He didn't just find that loophole. He created it. :)

What's even more interesting is how God later closed the loophole for all future generations after Jesus. Remember how the temple was destroyed in 70AD by the Romans? The temple was the main repository of genealogical records in Israel. To make proof of a Davidic claim now is virtually impossible. It would require a faked genealogy, sort of like a fake birth certificate. :) No one else can now make a legitimate claim to be the Messiah. It's Jesus, or no one. All other pretenders to the crown will be fakes.

Probably what really happened was, one of the Apostle's just mixed up Mary's father with Joseph's father and wrote the wrong name down. He made the same mistake with names and faces that every human being makes.

Ridiculous theory. As noted above, the line in Matthew tracks the Davidic line, obviously to support the claim of Jesus' to the Davidic throne, while the account in Luke is more interested in tracking the physical lineage through Mary. They could not have made such an elaborate mistake, involving multiple names, entirely different lines, each line self-consistent with it's own purpose. That cannot be explained as a simple slip of the pen. There was deliberation and method. Clear intent to make to different but coordinated points. No, this has the fingerprint of the planning of God Himself. And you call it a mistake.

If you have the perfection of God is linked to the perfection of the Bible view, you get a site like you quoted from. Where you have to jump through hoops and go to great lengths to explain away such simple things like I stated above. And to any reasonable person it looks ridiculous.

A great many things about being a Christian look ridiculous to the lost:

Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
(1 Corinthians 3:18-20)

BTW, as for representation, I hear there's a really good advocate whom you might trust more than me. Actually, He is already my Advocate. He never loses a case, so He's way better than me, and I'm happy to recommend Him.

Peace,

SR