Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: About Literalism: in what sense is Jesus son of David Message-ID: <498@utastro.UUCP> Date: Tue, 6-Aug-85 16:38:54 EDT Article-I.D.: utastro.498 Posted: Tue Aug 6 16:38:54 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 8-Aug-85 01:20:56 EDT References: <2194@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <1050@umcp-cs.UUCP> <2222@sdcrdcf.UUCP> Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX Lines: 26 > There are two principal theories concerning these genealogies. > > (1) Both genealogies *Joseph's*; Matthew exhibiting him as the legal > heir to the throne of David by naming succesive hiers of the kingdom > from David to Jesus "the reputed son of Joseph"; while Luke gives > Joseph's private genealogy or actual descent. > > (2) Matthew gives Joseph's and Luke, Mary's, genealogy. Preference > is usually given to theory number (2) because: I find both theories unconvincing. Neither has any scriptural authority, and both are obvious attempts to get around the scriptural contradiction. To accept either one, you have to do violence to what is written. There is a third theory that is convincing to me: Scripture was written by men, and like all things written by men, it contains errors. There, now, that wasn't so bad, was it? -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)