a problem for apologists

[bwcourtn]

I would like to see if someone who is articulate in christian apologetics possibly refute this (be sure to read it ALL the way through):

http://campus.fortunecity.com/defiant/666/genmatt.html

[Chris Weimer]

V.1 states explicitly that this is "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ." So this, according to Matthew, ties Jesus to Joseph, in turn tying him to king David, presumably because Joseph was a son of David. However, Joseph was not Jesus' father. Furthermore, this genealogy uses the word "begat" for every successive generation, which further indicates that it is based on a blood connection. This cannot possibly be Jesus' genealogy if Jesus wasn't "begotten" by Joseph.
The word begat is actually the Hebrew word Yalad, which has TNK uses of being metaphorical.

NB - I'm not apologizing for it. I'm just saying that if we are to build are offenses of Christianity, this should not be included.

[bwcourtn]

thanks for the reply. are you saying that the word for "begat" can also apply to adoption? i'm not near as articulate in apologetic issues as the people on this forum, so could you clarify what you are saying? i looked up the word "yalad" on google, but was unable to see what you meant...

[Chili]

I would like to see if someone who is articulate in christian apologetics possibly refute this (be sure to read it ALL the way through):

http://campus.fortunecity.com/defiant/666/genmatt.html

The answer is very simple if Jesus was the reborn Joseph and Mary was the undefiled fruit of his Jewish heritage. His Jewish heritage was called Nazareth and therefore Mary was the city of Nazareth.

I noticed that your author has God and Lord God mixed up as if they were one and the same an you just cannot do that when refuting passages. Notice here that Jesus was also crucified as king of the Jews just as Jehoiakim may have been a cursed king.

[bwcourtn]

The answer is very simple if Jesus was the reborn Joseph and Mary was the undefiled fruit of his Jewish heritage. His Jewish heritage was called Nazareth and therefore Mary was the city of Nazareth.

I noticed that your author has God and Lord God mixed up as if they were one and the same an you just cannot do that when refuting passages. Notice here that Jesus was also crucified as king of the Jews just as Jehoiakim may have been a cursed king.

I think you're jesting? If you're not, this would obviously be a heinous apologetic, to say the least. Thanks anyway!

[Julian]

The word begat is actually the Hebrew word Yalad, which has TNK uses of being metaphorical.

NB - I'm not apologizing for it. I'm just saying that if we are to build are offenses of Christianity, this should not be included.
Wouldn't the word 'begat' have been in greek in the gospels?

Julian

[Chili]

I think you're jesting? If you're not, this would obviously be a heinous apologetic, to say the least. Thanks anyway!

No I am not, and it makes a very good apologetic. In fact I see a whole bunch of Ph D's there for you if you want to pursue it.

[Vivisector]

I prefer verses along this line:

Luke 2:33: The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

Some manuscripts changed it to read, "Joseph and his mother."

Luke 2:43: After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it.

Changed in some manuscripts to read, "Joseph and his mother."

Luke 2:48: When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.�

Again, some manuscripts were changed to omit the offensive implication that Joseph was Jesus's father.

I'm away from my GNT, so I can't cite the textual support for the accepted readings and variants; perhaps someone else with the interest and resources at hand might want to do that.

Regardless of what Luke really meant by what he said, early Christians didn't like what he seemed to be saying in later verses.