A Christmas time contradiction.

[polonius]

I am always puzzled by the alternating scriptures for Christmas, the writings of Matthew and the writings of Luke.

Matthew tells us that Jesus was born while Herod was king (who died in 4 BC). Luke tells us that Jesus was born during the census of Syria conducted by Quirinus in 6 AD.

Luke tells us that John’s parents came from a priestly family of Aaron, not David, This is what is meant by ‘daughter of Aaron,’ (not a daughter of David).

So if Mary were the cousin of Elizabeth or any blood relative, she would also be of Aaron’s bloodline, not David’s.

And, of course, women lack a Y chromosome so they can’t transmit the DNA for maleness.

So if Jesus was of virgin birth he would not have been of Davidic ancestry and would be a woman.

Are we to consider both Matthew’s and Luke’s scripture to be inspired on these points?

[Donray]

The Bible is all fake news. No proof any of it is totally true. Remember, the OT was written thousands of years after the fact and contains parts of myths from all over the area.

[polonius]

The Bible is all fake news. No proof any of it is totally true. Remember, the OT was written thousands of years after the fact and contains parts of myths from all over the area.

RESPONSE: Yes. Mostly true.

https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

" Much of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament may have been assembled in the 5th century BCE.[1] The New Testament books were composed largely in the second half of the 1st century CE.[2] The Deuterocanonical books fall largely in between."

Some historical references expand this to the time-frame 800 BC - 500 BC for the Old Testament and 70- 95 BC for the New Testament.

[polonius]

JW asked:

- Was Mary of the tribe of her mother or of the tribe of her father?

- If Mary's father was a descendent of David ( but her mother was not) would Mary be considered a descendent of David (by reason of her of her father being a descendent of David), yes or No?

ANSWER:

Mary was of the tribe of her father.


Based on the gospel of Luke, Mary was the cousin (actually blood relative- look up Strong's lexicon) of Elizabeth, she would have the same ultimate paternal descent as Elizabeth.

Recall, descent is always from the same seed (sperm) lineage.

If Mary (according to Luke) was the blood relative of Elizabeth who was a “daughter of Aaron" Mary too was a daughter of Arron. Her father was not a descendant of David. And Elizabeth’s husband was a Levite priest( a son of Aaron).

[JehovahsWitness]

JW asked:

- Was Mary of the tribe of her mother or of the tribe of her father?

- If Mary's father was a descendent of David ( but her mother was not) would Mary be considered a descendent of David (by reason of her of her father being a descendent of David), yes or No?

ANSWER:

Mary was of the tribe of her father.

So you would agree if Mary's father was Judean (even if her mother was a Levite) Mary was not a Levite she was Judean?

What if Mary's father was a descendent of David (ie if he could trace his parentage through his male ancestors to King David) would that make as man a descendent of David?

And if a man was a decendentof David, what would all his children be?

[polonius]

JW asked:

So you would agree if Mary's father was Judean (even if her mother was a Levite) Mary was not a Levite she was Judean?

What if Mary's father was a descendent of David (ie if he could trace his parentage through his male ancestors to King David) would that make as man a descendent of David?

And if a man was a decendent of David, what would all his children be?[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Lets stop playing the "What if" game and look at Luke's gospel.


LUKE 1:5 5 In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

Luke 1:36 36 And now, your ("suggenes") or relative* Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren. (NRSV)

Thayer's Greek Lexicon: *suggenēs - of the same kin, akin to, related by blood

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 35 by polonius]

Ok no if's....

Mary's father was Judean. What did that make Mary?

[polonius]

JW asked:

So you would agree if Mary's father was Judean (even if her mother was a Levite) Mary was not a Levite she was Judean?

What if Mary's father was a descendent of David (ie if he could trace his parentage through his male ancestors to King David) would that make as man a descendent of David?

And if a man was a decendent of David, what would all his children be?

RESPONSE:

Lets stop playing the "What if" game and look at Luke's gospel.


LUKE 1:5 5 In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

Luke 1:36 36 And now, your ("suggenes") or relative* Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren. (NRSV)

Thayer's Greek Lexicon: *suggenēs - of the same kin, akin to, related by blood[/quote]

Or NWTJW New World Translation Luke 1:36 And look! Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son, in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her, the so-called barren woman

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 37 by polonius]

Why do you not want to answer my question? Could it be because you know that you have already admitted that a child's tribal heritage comes not from her mother but from her father but you didn't realize that by writing this you were admitting that Mary was a Judean, from her biological father no matter which tribe her mother was from. You said it. You can't "unsay" it.


But I'll let you off the hook and wish you well. I now grant you the last word.


Goodbye,



JW

[polonius]

[Replying to post 35 by polonius]

Ok no if's....

Mary's father was Judean. What did that make Mary?

You have not established that Mary's father was Judean.

If he were, then Mary would not be a "suggenes" of Elizabeth, "a daughter of Arron."

Do you think that Luke was wrong? Why?

And keep in mind that Jesus was was the product of a "virgin" birth, ie Joseph was not his biological father according to both Matthew and Luke.

And when the new Testament was written it was thought that the entire offspring was in the male seed or sperm. Even today women are still named after their male parent.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 37 by polonius]

Why do you not want to answer my question? Could it be because you know that you have already admitted that a child's tribal heritage comes not from her mother but from her father but you didn't realize that by writing this you were admitting that Mary was a Judean, from her biological father no matter which tribe her mother was from. You said it. You can't "unsay" it.


But I'll let you off the hook and wish you well. I now grant you the last word.


Goodbye,



JW

RESPONSE: No. Its because you are so profoundly in error.

But perhaps this will clarify the problem for you.


I assume that you know that the “virgin birth� story resulted from a mistranslation of the Isaish 7:14 “alma� as virgin rather than young woman. It’s been corrected in newer translations such as the Catholic New American Bible and the World Council of Church’s New Revised Standard Bible.

Isaiah 7:14 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign; the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son, shall name him Emmanuel.

The error in the Septuagint mistranslated alma (young woman) as the Greek parthanos (virgin)

https://outreachjudaism.org/alma-virgin/

“For nearly two millennia the Church has insisted that the Hebrew word almah עַלְמָה can only mean “virgin.� This is a vital position for defenders of Christianity to take because Matthew 1:22-23 translates alma in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin.� The first Gospel quotes this well known verse to provide the only “Old Testament� proof text for the supposed virgin birth of Jesus. The stakes are high for Christendom. If the Hebrew word alma does not mean a virgin, Matthew crudely misquoted the prophet Isaiah, and both a key tenet of Christianity and the credibility of the first Gospel collapses.�

“The word betulah appears frequently in the Jewish Scriptures, and is the only word – in both biblical and modern Hebrew – that conveys sexual purity.�

And somebody stated the obvious :

"Bethulah is the Hebrew word for virgin. If they meant virgin they would have wrote that, but they meant young woman so they wrote alma."