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)