Fact vs. theory

Fact vs. theory

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

December 11th, 2011, 3:01 am #1

Down below, Tim said, "What you call FACTS are only LOGICAL theories Vince."

What is the definition of "fact"?

Well, Tim cites quantum mechanics as some kind of refutation of facts ... and in a sense, he may be right. It's been "proven" by experimentation that the acts of observing or believing ... can change the outcome of an experiment, even if/when all of the same mechanical procedures are duplicated exactly.

However, the reason for this has not yet been established ... and so, all of the facts on that phenomenon are not yet known.

But let's take the assertion of Tim and Gerard, of the earth being flat and round as a pancake ... and that it was LOGICAL at one time to believe that ...

That's what early Christians believed.

Now think ...

WAS the earth actually flat and round as a pancake back in those days ... BECAUSE people generally believed it was? That seems to be what Tim is asserting! Since belief can change the outcome of duplicated experiments ... perhaps it's true that the earth, once upon a time ... was flat and round as a pancake BECAUSE people believed it was!

Do you accept THAT premise? If so, there's no point in me talking to you because I believe it's impossible for that to have happened!~

So you (may) see that ... in order for 2 or more people to reason something logically, they must START with an agreement of what is/are facts and what is logically possible.

Their agreeing, doesn't ESTABLISH facts but ... it gives a premise or platform from which to start ... employing LOGIC.

If all the parties agree that a particular set of circumstances are facts ... THEN they can go in and out through those facts to find a logical conclusion ... if/when a number of things happen.

So logic is not subject to opinion and therefore, logic is not a "theory." Logic is the inevitable outcome of working through the facts and saying, "if this, this and this are true ... then this other thing must necessarily be true as well (or it must be false).

The problem with Christian reasoning is that it doesn't allow logic to assert itself. A Christian will make a certain argument one day and forget all about that and then make an argument to the contrary the next day! Do the same facts CHANGE from day to day?

Christian reasoning continually has to ignore, side-step, abandon ... all appeals to logical reasoning because if it doesn't ... it will be PROVEN LOGICALLY to be false.

For example -(just one of very many)- a Christian will say that the Bible is always true.

Let's agree then with the assumption that the Bible is always true ...

The Bible says that Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit. It says that in Matthew and Luke ...

[Matt. 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.]


[Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.]


At the SAME time though, both of these books ALSO contain elaborate genealogies which imply that Jesus was born of the "seed of David" through Joseph. Luke states in 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph ..." And/but then Luke launches into a long genealogy which traces Joseph back to Adam! Why would Luke state that Jesus was conceived by the holy ghost ... but then add an elaborate genealogy to prove that Joseph had descended from David?

Looking at this logically, one asks the logical question: who then WAS the real father of Jesus: Joseph or the holy spirit?

Is it possible for human babies to have TWO fathers?

We have to agree that it's not possible for babies to have 2 fathers at the same time. If we DON'T agree on this, there's no point in further pursuing the question ... is there?

If we agree that human babies can only have one father at a time, we can continue with a logical dissection of who the real father was but we MUST agree upon a certain fact at this point ... and that it is, indeed, a fact ... that human babies can only have a single father.

If we agree on that fact, then the Matthew/Luke accounts are contradictory to themselves because they both claim that Jesus was conceived by the holy ghost and yet imply that he was conceived by the sperm of Joseph too, (in order to fit with being a descendant of David). So that creates the element of logical dissonance with this account.

Perhaps there's a logical explanation to this seeming dissonance but if so ... what IS that explanation? Our process of logical dissection DEMANDS a logical answer to this question.

If a Christian WERE to present a theory about this contradiction -how to reconcile the contradiction in some way that would satisfy the disbelievers demand for a true fact in this issue- then the logical argumentation and discovery could continue ... but ... if the believer can NOT come up with something that is mutually agreed to be possible or true ... there can be no more meaningful discussion on the topic.

So you see, logic is not subject to opinion. Rather, it is the comparison of mutually agreed-upon facts between a group of people. As soon as one or more of the parties refuses to accept some part of the argument as being true fact, there can no longer be a logical discussion on the matter.

-Vince

Quote
Like
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

December 11th, 2011, 3:55 am #2

<p align="center"><img alt="animated-bell.gif" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... d-bell.gif">

Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation for instance, replaced Newton's and, surpise-surprise, apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome.

<img alt="christmas_animated_gifs_26.gif" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... ifs_26.gif">


rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : incontrovertibility
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -


New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability
Quote
Like
Share

Tim
Tim

December 11th, 2011, 6:58 am #3

Down below, Tim said, "What you call FACTS are only LOGICAL theories Vince."

What is the definition of "fact"?

Well, Tim cites quantum mechanics as some kind of refutation of facts ... and in a sense, he may be right. It's been "proven" by experimentation that the acts of observing or believing ... can change the outcome of an experiment, even if/when all of the same mechanical procedures are duplicated exactly.

However, the reason for this has not yet been established ... and so, all of the facts on that phenomenon are not yet known.

But let's take the assertion of Tim and Gerard, of the earth being flat and round as a pancake ... and that it was LOGICAL at one time to believe that ...

That's what early Christians believed.

Now think ...

WAS the earth actually flat and round as a pancake back in those days ... BECAUSE people generally believed it was? That seems to be what Tim is asserting! Since belief can change the outcome of duplicated experiments ... perhaps it's true that the earth, once upon a time ... was flat and round as a pancake BECAUSE people believed it was!

Do you accept THAT premise? If so, there's no point in me talking to you because I believe it's impossible for that to have happened!~

So you (may) see that ... in order for 2 or more people to reason something logically, they must START with an agreement of what is/are facts and what is logically possible.

Their agreeing, doesn't ESTABLISH facts but ... it gives a premise or platform from which to start ... employing LOGIC.

If all the parties agree that a particular set of circumstances are facts ... THEN they can go in and out through those facts to find a logical conclusion ... if/when a number of things happen.

So logic is not subject to opinion and therefore, logic is not a "theory." Logic is the inevitable outcome of working through the facts and saying, "if this, this and this are true ... then this other thing must necessarily be true as well (or it must be false).

The problem with Christian reasoning is that it doesn't allow logic to assert itself. A Christian will make a certain argument one day and forget all about that and then make an argument to the contrary the next day! Do the same facts CHANGE from day to day?

Christian reasoning continually has to ignore, side-step, abandon ... all appeals to logical reasoning because if it doesn't ... it will be PROVEN LOGICALLY to be false.

For example -(just one of very many)- a Christian will say that the Bible is always true.

Let's agree then with the assumption that the Bible is always true ...

The Bible says that Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit. It says that in Matthew and Luke ...

[Matt. 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.]


[Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.]


At the SAME time though, both of these books ALSO contain elaborate genealogies which imply that Jesus was born of the "seed of David" through Joseph. Luke states in 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph ..." And/but then Luke launches into a long genealogy which traces Joseph back to Adam! Why would Luke state that Jesus was conceived by the holy ghost ... but then add an elaborate genealogy to prove that Joseph had descended from David?

Looking at this logically, one asks the logical question: who then WAS the real father of Jesus: Joseph or the holy spirit?

Is it possible for human babies to have TWO fathers?

We have to agree that it's not possible for babies to have 2 fathers at the same time. If we DON'T agree on this, there's no point in further pursuing the question ... is there?

If we agree that human babies can only have one father at a time, we can continue with a logical dissection of who the real father was but we MUST agree upon a certain fact at this point ... and that it is, indeed, a fact ... that human babies can only have a single father.

If we agree on that fact, then the Matthew/Luke accounts are contradictory to themselves because they both claim that Jesus was conceived by the holy ghost and yet imply that he was conceived by the sperm of Joseph too, (in order to fit with being a descendant of David). So that creates the element of logical dissonance with this account.

Perhaps there's a logical explanation to this seeming dissonance but if so ... what IS that explanation? Our process of logical dissection DEMANDS a logical answer to this question.

If a Christian WERE to present a theory about this contradiction -how to reconcile the contradiction in some way that would satisfy the disbelievers demand for a true fact in this issue- then the logical argumentation and discovery could continue ... but ... if the believer can NOT come up with something that is mutually agreed to be possible or true ... there can be no more meaningful discussion on the topic.

So you see, logic is not subject to opinion. Rather, it is the comparison of mutually agreed-upon facts between a group of people. As soon as one or more of the parties refuses to accept some part of the argument as being true fact, there can no longer be a logical discussion on the matter.

-Vince
""""WAS the earth actually flat and round as a pancake back in those days ... BECAUSE people generally believed it was? That seems to be what Tim is asserting!""""

I didn't assert that Vince.
Isaiah40:22
22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,

Does it say flat?.... or a circle?

Revelation7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth,

And what circle has four corners? Only a sphere needs four places for communication.






""""So you (may) see that ... in order for 2 or more people to reason something logically, they must START with an agreement of what is/are facts and what is logically possible.""""

You must be logical Vince, otherwise we can't agree.






""""The problem with Christian reasoning is that it doesn't allow logic to assert itself. A Christian will make a certain argument one day and forget all about that and then make an argument to the contrary the next day! Do the same facts CHANGE from day to day?""""

I believe Jesus is the Son of God. Does my argument change?.. Or do your strategies?







""""Christian reasoning continually has to ignore, side-step, abandon ... all appeals to logical reasoning because if it doesn't ... it will be PROVEN LOGICALLY to be false.""""

In your dreams Vince. The fact is science is proving the Bible to be correct. And science and the Bible are on a collision cource, and soon to become one.






""""At the SAME time though, both of these books ALSO contain elaborate genealogies which imply that Jesus was born of the "seed of David" through Joseph. Luke states in 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph ..." And/but then Luke launches into a long genealogy which traces Joseph back to Adam! Why would Luke state that Jesus was conceived by the holy ghost ... but then add an elaborate genealogy to prove that Joseph had descended from David?
Looking at this logically, one asks the logical question: who then WAS the real father of Jesus: Joseph or the holy spirit?
Is it possible for human babies to have TWO fathers?""""

Joseph was Jesus step father. When Jesus was born as a mortal, Jesus was a baby human.






""""So you see, logic is not subject to opinion. Rather, it is the comparison of mutually agreed-upon facts between a group of people. As soon as one or more of the parties refuses to accept some part of the argument as being true fact, there can no longer be a logical discussion on the matter.""""

That is a cop out Vince.

Peace.
Take care.
Bro Tim

Quote
Share

Tim
Tim

December 11th, 2011, 7:26 am #4

<p align="center"><img alt="animated-bell.gif" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... d-bell.gif">

Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation for instance, replaced Newton's and, surpise-surprise, apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome.

<img alt="christmas_animated_gifs_26.gif" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... ifs_26.gif">


rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : incontrovertibility
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -


New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability
Facts and theories are different things
-----------------------------------

JVH your facts are theories. You just don't realize it.
Theories of hate and rebellion against the Babylonian system.
And I agree in that respect

But I do question your reasoning ability JVH.

Is this a game to you JVH or do you have a disability of reasoning?

Your posts are of an abused person JVH.
And don't you fucking laugh it off!!!!

No man in his right mind would consistently post what you do JVH.

Yes, people here love you JVH, not for what you post, but for what you are.

Seriously
Bro Tim

Quote
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

December 11th, 2011, 9:39 am #5

""""WAS the earth actually flat and round as a pancake back in those days ... BECAUSE people generally believed it was? That seems to be what Tim is asserting!""""

I didn't assert that Vince.
Isaiah40:22
22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,

Does it say flat?.... or a circle?

Revelation7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth,

And what circle has four corners? Only a sphere needs four places for communication.






""""So you (may) see that ... in order for 2 or more people to reason something logically, they must START with an agreement of what is/are facts and what is logically possible.""""

You must be logical Vince, otherwise we can't agree.






""""The problem with Christian reasoning is that it doesn't allow logic to assert itself. A Christian will make a certain argument one day and forget all about that and then make an argument to the contrary the next day! Do the same facts CHANGE from day to day?""""

I believe Jesus is the Son of God. Does my argument change?.. Or do your strategies?







""""Christian reasoning continually has to ignore, side-step, abandon ... all appeals to logical reasoning because if it doesn't ... it will be PROVEN LOGICALLY to be false.""""

In your dreams Vince. The fact is science is proving the Bible to be correct. And science and the Bible are on a collision cource, and soon to become one.






""""At the SAME time though, both of these books ALSO contain elaborate genealogies which imply that Jesus was born of the "seed of David" through Joseph. Luke states in 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph ..." And/but then Luke launches into a long genealogy which traces Joseph back to Adam! Why would Luke state that Jesus was conceived by the holy ghost ... but then add an elaborate genealogy to prove that Joseph had descended from David?
Looking at this logically, one asks the logical question: who then WAS the real father of Jesus: Joseph or the holy spirit?
Is it possible for human babies to have TWO fathers?""""

Joseph was Jesus step father. When Jesus was born as a mortal, Jesus was a baby human.






""""So you see, logic is not subject to opinion. Rather, it is the comparison of mutually agreed-upon facts between a group of people. As soon as one or more of the parties refuses to accept some part of the argument as being true fact, there can no longer be a logical discussion on the matter.""""

That is a cop out Vince.

Peace.
Take care.
Bro Tim
Then what was the point of writing down 2 elaborate genealogies (which don't agree with each OTHER in the two accounts either, btw) ... tracing Joseph to David? That makes no logical sense ... unless there are other facts which haven't been disclosed/discovered/discussed.

And how does a sphere have 4 corners? Explain.

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share

Tim
Tim

December 11th, 2011, 7:45 pm #6

Then what was the point of writing down 2 elaborate genealogies (which don't agree with each OTHER in the two accounts either, btw) ... tracing Joseph to David? That makes no logical sense ... unless there are other facts which haven't been disclosed/discovered/discussed.
And how does a sphere have 4 corners? Explain.
-Vince
----------------------------------

Genealogies? Mary was human and had ancestors, apparently from David.
Joseph was not Jesus biological father.
God made the seed, like He made everything else to begin with.
Then Mary had other normal children after Jesus was born.

And how does a sphere have 4 corners? It doesn't. But if global communication is desired you do need 4 points for the transfer around a sphere.

Bro Tim

Quote
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

December 11th, 2011, 8:10 pm #7

Christians who claim that Jesus was God, can NOT logically explain how that's possible, given what the Bible says about him.

Neither of the genealogies references Mary. BOTH make direct connection to Joseph.

[Matt. 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being ... the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,]


... and so they resort to saying nonsensical, illogical things.;

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

December 11th, 2011, 8:22 pm #8

<p align="center"><img alt="animated-bell.gif" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... d-bell.gif">

.... becomes pointless
when people make up their own meanings of definitions
or simply redefine them into something hitherto totally
unknown to anyone other than themselves - in effect,
rendering it fiction

and when ardent believers -in whatever- are confronted with incontestables
they either go mute; more illogical; dumb; in denial, turn dishonest; personal;
abusive; absurd even ..... or any combination thereof, and cannot seem
to help themselves but advertise it, therewith granting the courtesy of
instant clarification

<em><img alt="christmas_animated_gifs_26.gif" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... .gif"></em>


rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : incontrovertibility
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -


New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability
Quote
Like
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

December 11th, 2011, 8:27 pm #9

Down below, Tim said, "What you call FACTS are only LOGICAL theories Vince."

What is the definition of "fact"?

Well, Tim cites quantum mechanics as some kind of refutation of facts ... and in a sense, he may be right. It's been "proven" by experimentation that the acts of observing or believing ... can change the outcome of an experiment, even if/when all of the same mechanical procedures are duplicated exactly.

However, the reason for this has not yet been established ... and so, all of the facts on that phenomenon are not yet known.

But let's take the assertion of Tim and Gerard, of the earth being flat and round as a pancake ... and that it was LOGICAL at one time to believe that ...

That's what early Christians believed.

Now think ...

WAS the earth actually flat and round as a pancake back in those days ... BECAUSE people generally believed it was? That seems to be what Tim is asserting! Since belief can change the outcome of duplicated experiments ... perhaps it's true that the earth, once upon a time ... was flat and round as a pancake BECAUSE people believed it was!

Do you accept THAT premise? If so, there's no point in me talking to you because I believe it's impossible for that to have happened!~

So you (may) see that ... in order for 2 or more people to reason something logically, they must START with an agreement of what is/are facts and what is logically possible.

Their agreeing, doesn't ESTABLISH facts but ... it gives a premise or platform from which to start ... employing LOGIC.

If all the parties agree that a particular set of circumstances are facts ... THEN they can go in and out through those facts to find a logical conclusion ... if/when a number of things happen.

So logic is not subject to opinion and therefore, logic is not a "theory." Logic is the inevitable outcome of working through the facts and saying, "if this, this and this are true ... then this other thing must necessarily be true as well (or it must be false).

The problem with Christian reasoning is that it doesn't allow logic to assert itself. A Christian will make a certain argument one day and forget all about that and then make an argument to the contrary the next day! Do the same facts CHANGE from day to day?

Christian reasoning continually has to ignore, side-step, abandon ... all appeals to logical reasoning because if it doesn't ... it will be PROVEN LOGICALLY to be false.

For example -(just one of very many)- a Christian will say that the Bible is always true.

Let's agree then with the assumption that the Bible is always true ...

The Bible says that Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit. It says that in Matthew and Luke ...

[Matt. 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.]


[Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.]


At the SAME time though, both of these books ALSO contain elaborate genealogies which imply that Jesus was born of the "seed of David" through Joseph. Luke states in 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph ..." And/but then Luke launches into a long genealogy which traces Joseph back to Adam! Why would Luke state that Jesus was conceived by the holy ghost ... but then add an elaborate genealogy to prove that Joseph had descended from David?

Looking at this logically, one asks the logical question: who then WAS the real father of Jesus: Joseph or the holy spirit?

Is it possible for human babies to have TWO fathers?

We have to agree that it's not possible for babies to have 2 fathers at the same time. If we DON'T agree on this, there's no point in further pursuing the question ... is there?

If we agree that human babies can only have one father at a time, we can continue with a logical dissection of who the real father was but we MUST agree upon a certain fact at this point ... and that it is, indeed, a fact ... that human babies can only have a single father.

If we agree on that fact, then the Matthew/Luke accounts are contradictory to themselves because they both claim that Jesus was conceived by the holy ghost and yet imply that he was conceived by the sperm of Joseph too, (in order to fit with being a descendant of David). So that creates the element of logical dissonance with this account.

Perhaps there's a logical explanation to this seeming dissonance but if so ... what IS that explanation? Our process of logical dissection DEMANDS a logical answer to this question.

If a Christian WERE to present a theory about this contradiction -how to reconcile the contradiction in some way that would satisfy the disbelievers demand for a true fact in this issue- then the logical argumentation and discovery could continue ... but ... if the believer can NOT come up with something that is mutually agreed to be possible or true ... there can be no more meaningful discussion on the topic.

So you see, logic is not subject to opinion. Rather, it is the comparison of mutually agreed-upon facts between a group of people. As soon as one or more of the parties refuses to accept some part of the argument as being true fact, there can no longer be a logical discussion on the matter.

-Vince
<p align="center"><img alt="animated-bell.gif" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... d-bell.gif">
<p align="left">The most sure way to establish truth
is by facts, and facts are determined
by the properties that define them.
Weird concept perhaps, but there. <img alt="happy.gif" src="/images/happy.gif" width="14" height="14">
<p align="left">So, what are the properties that define fact ...

<em><img alt="christmas_animated_gifs_26.gif" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... .gif"></em>



rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : incontrovertibility
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -


New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!
<img alt="[linked image]" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... tworks.gif">

CD: short for inevitability
Last edited by JVH on December 11th, 2011, 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 4th, 2007, 4:09 pm

December 11th, 2011, 8:28 pm #10

Then what was the point of writing down 2 elaborate genealogies (which don't agree with each OTHER in the two accounts either, btw) ... tracing Joseph to David? That makes no logical sense ... unless there are other facts which haven't been disclosed/discovered/discussed.

And how does a sphere have 4 corners? Explain.

-Vince
One is the Blood Lineage.
-- Through David's second son, Nathan.

The other...
Is the List of Kings...
In the line of Descent from the Throne...
-- Through David's first son, Solomon.
<blockquote> "New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition", Inter-Varsity Press... page 987:
The family tree [in Luke] differs from that in Matthew... Both lists give the descent of Jesus through his supposed father Joseph (Lk 3:23, "so it was believed") The theory that Luke really gives us the family tree of Mary rather than of Joseph is improbable. The theory with least difficulties is that Matthew gives the descendants of David down the royal line (i.e. who was heir to the throne at any given time), but Luke gives the particular line to which Joseph belonged.
Thought you might be interested in knowing this.

-PRev1-
</blockquote>

President Barrack Hussein Obama

-- Nobel Peace Prize, 2009 --
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
-- George Orwell, "1984" --


"If you suddenly think Stephen Colbert is truly right wing, that's when I would worry."
-- Neuropsychologist Katherine Rankin.
Quote
Like
Share