| Author: | Gerald Sigal | ISBN: | 9781479766024 |
| Publisher: | Xlibris US | Publication: | February 19, 2013 |
| Imprint: | Xlibris US | Language: | English |
| Author: | Gerald Sigal |
| ISBN: | 9781479766024 |
| Publisher: | Xlibris US |
| Publication: | February 19, 2013 |
| Imprint: | Xlibris US |
| Language: | English |
The author of the Gospel of Matthew sought to portray alleged events in the life of Jesus as fulfillments of biblical passages. Ample evidence has shown that there is no validity to his claims. Lukes author merely states that a virginal conception took place. Both present a story their readers can relate to from the familiar Hellenistic worldview: a god impregnates a virgin thereby sending his hybrid son into the world to do a certain task. Matthew and Luke are not the originators of the core belief that a virginal conception took place.
According to the Gospels, Mary conceived as a divinely impregnated virgin betrothed to a Davidic descendant named Joseph. If there was no biological relationship between Joseph and the child Mary bore, the story presented is not pertinent to the claim that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah on the basis of Josephs lineage. That Matthew and Luke solely through Joseph trace Jesus lineage in two variant forms becomes a meaningless exercise.
As it became clear that attempts to connect Jesus to David through Joseph were futile, efforts were made to make the connection through Mary by claiming one or the other genealogy was really hers. It is to no avail. This too has failed. What most Christians do now is live in a theological state of denial maintaining that there are no real problems only unbelievers quibbling over minor points. Alas! What else can Christian believers do, but hide their heads in a theological sand box and blame quibblers?
The author of the Gospel of Matthew sought to portray alleged events in the life of Jesus as fulfillments of biblical passages. Ample evidence has shown that there is no validity to his claims. Lukes author merely states that a virginal conception took place. Both present a story their readers can relate to from the familiar Hellenistic worldview: a god impregnates a virgin thereby sending his hybrid son into the world to do a certain task. Matthew and Luke are not the originators of the core belief that a virginal conception took place.
According to the Gospels, Mary conceived as a divinely impregnated virgin betrothed to a Davidic descendant named Joseph. If there was no biological relationship between Joseph and the child Mary bore, the story presented is not pertinent to the claim that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah on the basis of Josephs lineage. That Matthew and Luke solely through Joseph trace Jesus lineage in two variant forms becomes a meaningless exercise.
As it became clear that attempts to connect Jesus to David through Joseph were futile, efforts were made to make the connection through Mary by claiming one or the other genealogy was really hers. It is to no avail. This too has failed. What most Christians do now is live in a theological state of denial maintaining that there are no real problems only unbelievers quibbling over minor points. Alas! What else can Christian believers do, but hide their heads in a theological sand box and blame quibblers?
