Jesus's genealogy

Your way of looking at things is very anachronistic. People from that period did not care that much about factual accuracy. Luke's gospel is a hagiography, not a historical record. And the genealogy in Matthew has clear poetical characteristics. The timeline in the synoptics differs significantly from the timeline in the Gospel of John. Et Cetera.

Scripture is inerrant on matters of morals and faith, not in trivial, irrelevant details. Once again, see Titus 3:9.

Factual accuracy is in no way in opposition to the poetic nature of Sacred Scripture. "People from that period" did not see them as opposing forces, you do.
That they do not oppose is the basis for Liturgy, and the entire Bible is liturgical. From Genesis to Revelations. If you're reading it from the scientific assumption that unless the material effectiveness is not maximized it is not literal, you're not going to get it and you will project some weird philosophy like you did.

Those aren't trivial details lad.
The Catholic Church condemns your statements.
And people from that period did care about factual accuracy. Otherwise the Church Fathers wouldn't write entire books explaining stuff like this.
The only thing you can say it that Matthew messes around with the chronology of events, because he wants to make a point and thought it was better to put the episodes in that arrangement.
Every episode narrated on the gospels actually happened 100%, the minor differences are only in the wording of some phrases, but that's meaningless. see Augustine's "The Harmony of the Gospels"
The difference of the genealogies are easily explained if we learn how Jews keept their genealogies. According to most church fathers Matthew traces Jesus ancestors through the Royal lineage of David while Luke traces Jesus ancestors through the "priestly" lineage, since Matthew portrays Jesus as a King and Luke portrays Him as a sacrificial Lamb.
The common opinion is that Eli was just his father according to the law, since Jacob was his next of kin, and Eli died with no offspring it was Jacob's task to give children to his brother, Onan had the same task in genesis and God killed him because he didn't want to give his late brother kids so he spilled his semen so Jacob begat Joseph and the two fathers problem is thus solved because the Jews pushed to put lots of importance in this family matters.

...

I do not view them as "opposing forces" at all. I am merely stating a fact: during antiquity, people did not care about historicity in the way we do. A more or less correct but not entirely accurate portrayal was considered good enough back then.

The genealogies are not "events" though. You're mixing apples and oranges. Two of the Gospels don't even have a genealogy of Jesus. The exact genealogy of Jesus is immaterial.

You can find an answer on the internet.

Wtf does that even mean? What kind of modernism is that?
The genealogy of Christ is a real one. Even by his mother side he is a descendant of David by the flesh.

What kind of fact is that? The early church fathers were already working on this "difficulties".
To claim the mentality of the people changed in less then 50 after the gospels were written is retardeness.

Fixed.

youtube.com/watch?v=U3bsAMyRwbw&feature=youtu.be
This offers an explanation, its quite complicated but that may be why Paul in Titus 3:9 (as stated by ) advises against worrying about "foolish genealogies"

But Titus 3:9 just warns not to waste time with genealogies because the Jews would say they are the best because they came from Abraham and other claims.
That verse is basically about the Jews since he mentions strivings and contentions about the Law.
In no way can this be used to support the modernistic view that the genealogy of Christ presented by the Gospels aren't correct. It's true that they aren't very important compared to the other eternal truths revealed, but it's plain modernism to say they are wrong or inaccurate.

This isn't meant for you, but there are anons here trying to justify their modern heresies.

This is the kind of faggy thing that passes for "scholarly" (not faithful) biblical commentary these days too. Not just on imageboards.

The sad things is that those kind of commentaries are on some Catholic bibles.
Who the winnie the pooh though it was a good ideia to let atheists write bible commentaries in the first place?
The sad thing is that some catholics and Christians in general go along so they won't look dumb or retarded to the rest of the world.

So many fundies ITT.

You're wrong. Paul is talking about debates within the early Church about Jesus' earthly genealogy. His letters predate the gospels of Matthew and Luke.
Besides, if the matter is irrelevant for "the Jews who would say they are the best because they came from Abraham" then they are all the more irrelevant for Jesus, who is not great because he is descended from David/Abraham/whomever, but because he is the Word made Flesh.

Hmmmmmmmm…interesting…

Attached: 7f0698d0901a8930f552e21531bdf4cf0c8f1d64353ee58c6d0d1480f072f63a.jpg (402x600, 26.19K)

I thought the "line of David" just meant the Hebrew people

This user might be onto something.

Is there any reason for believing this other than being a contrarian?

Go back to Reddit

This. The amount of modernism in this thread is staggering.

Ok buddy.

Yes, that's modernist

What's next? That Adam and Eve didn't exist? That the miracles are just there to color the story up a bit?
Either you accept the Scripture and the interpretation of the Church or you're winnie the poohed.
Read Lamentabili by Pius X and see with how many condemned statements you agree with.

Thanks, that's a good resource. I agree with many if not most of those statements yet I think liberal Christianity is really shit. Weird. But a nice list to do a check of your beliefs.

Incoherence is perhaps the most telling liberal trait though. Congrats.

Attached: John_Martin_-_The_Great_Day_of_His_Wrath.jpg (3136x2023, 3.43M)