Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: johnsoniu Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What is the light in Gen 1:3? | Gen 1:3 | johnsoniu | 111211 | ||
What is the "light" spoken of in Genesis 1:3-5 as opposed to the sun, stars and moonlight created on the fourth day? | ||||||
2 | How was Jesus of David's seed/line? | Gen 3:15 | johnsoniu | 111005 | ||
I don't think that Luke's geneology is attributed to Mary "in an attempt to fix the problem", they do so because it makes sense. Luke's and Matthew's geneologies are different. Mattthew's is Joseph's and traces his ancestery back to Abraham to prove that Jesus was of Jewish descent and fulfilled the requirement for the Messiah. This makes sense also because Matthew's gospel was written especially for the Jewish people. Luke's geneology traces Jesus' ancestery back to Adam and Eve, of whom the original seed promise was made. This goes along with Luke's purpose of showing that Jesus was the Savior to the entire world. As for women not being held in high enough importance to have their geneologies listed, Luke had just spent the two previous chapters focusing on Jesus' birth, highlighting Mary and Elizabeth's stories. He obviously thought enough of them to include them in some detail. The only "leap of faith" required to believe this is to accept that Eli in Luke 3:23 is Joseph's father-in-law, thus Mary's father. If not, then one of the two geneologies(Luke and Matthew's) is either false or some mysterious geneology they threw in for no reason whatsoever. I can find no reason to believe either writer included false or misleading information. |
||||||