THE NINETEEN QUESTIONS FOR CHRISTIAN CLERGY
ISNET Homepage | MEDIA Homepage | Program Kerja | Koleksi | Anggota
| Indeks Antar Agama | Indeks Artikel |
QUESTION 8
Genealogy or Mythology?
"The genealogies of Jesus as they appear in the Gospels may
perhaps be the subject that has led Christian commentators
to perform their most characteristic feats of dialectic
acrobatics, on part indeed with Luke's and Matthew's
imagination." (The Bible, The Quran, and Science, Dr.
Maurice Bucaille, American Trust, Indianapolis, 1979, p.
93).
In his book, Is the Bible God's Word?, A. Deedat tries to
separate the wheat from the chaff. The following three
paragraphs are from Deedat.
Only two commissioned
"Of the four Gospel writers, God 'inspired' only two of them
to record the genealogy of His 'son.' To make it easy for
you to compare the 'fathers and grandfathers' of Jesus
Christ in both the 'inspired' lists, I have culled the names
only, minus the verbiage. See page (37). Between David and
Jesus, God 'inspired' Matthew to record only 26 ancestors
for His 'son.' But Luke, also 'inspired,' gathered up 41
forefathers for Jesus. The only name common to these two
lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH and that, too, a
'supposed' father according to Luke 3:23 (AV). This one name
is glaring. You need no fine-tooth comb to catch him. It is
Joseph the carpenter. You will also easily observe that the
lists are grossly contradictory. Could both the lists have
emanated from the same source, i.e. God?"
Fulfilling prophecy?
"Matthew and Luke are over-zealous in making DAVID the King,
the prime ancestor of Jesus, because of the false notion
that Jesus was to sit on the 'Throne of his father David'
(Acts 2:30). The Gospels believe this prophecy, for they
tell us that instead of Jesus sitting on his father's
(David's) throne, it was Pontius Pilate, a Roman Governor, a
pagan who sat on that very throne and condemned its rightful
(?) heir (Jesus) to death. 'Never mind,' says the
evangelist, 'if not in his first coming then in his second
coming he will fulfill this prophecy and three hundred
others beside.' But with their extravagant enthusiasm to
trace the ancestry of Jesus physically to David, (for this
is actually what the Bible says 'THAT OF THE FRUIT OF HIS
(David's) LOINS, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH' (literally, not
metaphorically Acts 2:30), both the 'inspired' authors trip
and fall on the very first step."
"Matthew 1:6 says that Jesus was the son of DAVID through
SOLOMON, but Luke 3:31 says that he (Jesus) was the son of
David through NATHAN. One need not be a gynecologist to tell
that by no stretch of the imagination could the seed of
David reach the mother of Jesus both through Solomon and
Nathan at the same time! We know that both the authors are
confounded liars, because Jesus was conceived miraculously,
without any male intervention. Even if we concede a physical
ancestry through David, both authors would still be proved
liars for the obvious reason (p. 52-54)."
"It is an artificial list"
Matthew, lists 27 names for the "genealogy of Jesus." But,
this is one short than what he claims right after the list:
"Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to
David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and
fourteen from the exile to the Christ." (Matthew 1:17).
Obviously, Matthew pays a special attention to the number
fourteen. The New American Bible, published by the Catholic
Biblical Association of America in 1970 has a shocking
footnote for Matthew 1:17.
(The diagram comparing the two different lists from Matthew
1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-31 is omitted)
"The genealogy is artificially constructed out of three
groups of fourteen names each, taken principally from
Genesis, Ruth, 1 Chronicles and 2 Kings. The list of names
beginning with Abiud in 1:13 is unknown to the Old
Testament. The number 14 is undoubtedly a mnemonic device,
perhaps chosen because the numerical value of the three
letters of David's name (DVD) yields in Hebrew the sum of
14."
After this acknowledgement can anyone accept the geneology?
If so, there is more...
Who are Perez, Zerah and Tamar?
Perez, Zerah and Tamar can be seen in Matthew's artificial
genealogy fabricated for Jesus Christ. Before looking for
their former misdeed in the Old Testament, let's see the
position of adulterous generation:
"A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous
sign..." (Matthew 12:39; 16:4)
"If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous
generation ..." (Mark 8:38)
"But you come here, you sons of a sorceress, you offspring
of adulterers and prostitutes!" (Isaiah 57:3)
No doubt, both the Old and the New Testament condemn
adultery, prostitution and incest. It is not considered a
good credit to be the offspring of adulterers and
prostitutes.
However, Matthew 1:3 claims that Jesus was the offspring of
a prostitute, namely Tamar. According to Genesis 38, Tamar
has relation with her father-in-law and gives birth to twin
boys: Perez and Zerah. The Bible labels the result of this
kind of relation as "bastard" or in some polite translations
as "one of illegitimate birth".
"A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the
Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into
the congregation of the Lord." (Deuteronomy 23:2)
Bastards with their prostitute mother enter...
Not only a bastard, twin bastards with their prostitute
mother sneak into the genealogy of the "Lord"! They cannot
enter the congregation of the Lord, but they obtain an
honorable place in the blood-line of the "Lord"! According
to Matthew 1:3, David is the ninth generation of Perez, the
Biblical bastard.
"All these characters are honored in the "Book of God" for
their bastardy. They became the great grandfathers and great
grandmothers of the "only begotten son of God" (?) ... No
decent reader can read the seduction of Lot to his mother,
sister or daughter, not even to his fiancee if she is a
chaste and moral woman. Yet you will come across perverted
people who will gorge this filth. Tastes can be cultivated!
Read again and mark Ezekiel 23 ... The "whoredoms" of the
two sisters. Aholah and Aholibah. The sexual details here
puts to shame even the unexpurgated edition of many banned
books." (Is The Bible God's Word?, A. Deedat, Durban, South
Africa, 1986, p. 48-51).
Questions:
1. Which genealogy is correct: the one in Matthew or
the one in Luke?
2. Why is Joseph one of the very few common names between
the two lists from David to Jesus?
3. Jesus cannot be related to David, if he was conceived
miraculously by a virgin. How can Gospel writers make
a "genealogical" connection between Jesus and David,
though Jesus refused it? Mt 22:42-45; Mk 12:35; Lk:20:41
4. Jesus was born from Mary without a father (Matthew 1:23).
The only genealogy he had should be from Mary, not from
a "supposed" father (Luke 3:23), i.e. Joseph.
Why do you refer to Jesus as "son of Joseph", instead
of "son of Mary"? Where is the genealogy of Mary?
5. Why do the ancestors of Jesus mentioned in Luke's list
have a life span much shorter than the one in Matthew?
6. Matthew who tries hard to fabricate 14+14+14 artificial
ancestors between Abraham and Jesus falls one short;
he mentions 41 names, instead 42 names (14 from Abraham
to David, and 27 from David to Jesus). Which one of the
ancestors of Jesus did Matthew dismiss in his
"inspired" Gospel? Why?
7. Considering the modern estimate that Abraham lived
around 1850 B.C., according to the Old Testament,
man's appearance on earth is less than 6 thousand
years ago. Is this historical data correct?
8. Why does Matthew honor Perez, Zerah and Tamar by
presenting them as the ancestors of Jesus?
Does it mean incest and adultery is justified?
9. What does "wicked, adulterous generation" mean?
10. Considering Deuteronomy 23:2, how could David enter
into the congregation of the Lord, since Matthew makes
him the ninth generation of the Biblical bastard, Perez?
Moslem Questions on Christianity Edip Yuksel P.O. Box 43476, Tucson, AZ 85733-3476 U.S.A. Tel/Fax: (520) 323-7636
| Indeks Antar Agama | Indeks Artikel |
| ISNET Homepage | MEDIA Homepage | Program Kerja | Koleksi | Anggota |