Did the author of Matthew or Luke lie?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Needy1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Needy1

Guest
The genealogy of Jesus that is Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-28 is contradicting. So logically one of them were lied. Which one and why.
 
I thought it was Matthew gave through Joseph as Jewish tradition and Luke was speaking to gentiles and gave it through the biological lineage through Mary.
 
Both are the genealogy of Jesus and Joseph according to Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23.
 
One uses Joseph’s Father in Law so they are different.
 
Neither St. Matthew nor St. Luke lied. They were protected by the Holy Ghost Who inspired and protected them from error.

Read Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII. That will help you immensely. It did for me.
 
Needy1 said:
The genealogy of Jesus that is Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-28 is contradicting. So logically one of them were lied. Which one and why.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Look at the twelve Apostles of Jesus - all Gospels are agreed that there WERE twelve, but many of those twelve seem to have gone by more than one name. Makes sense in an era where there was a small number of extremely common given names that some were given second names, nicknames etc. Note the multiple Judes/Judases, Simons and Jameses, even among the extremely small group of those closest to Jesus.
 
Only in matters of faith and morals are the Scriptures protected from error.
 
The Resurrection is a historical event; yet we do not separate that from faith. This is why factual accuracy in the scriptures is important for faith and morals
 
What is the name of your great grandfather?
If you gave me four different names, am I to assume you’re a big liar?
 
Needy1 said:
The genealogy of Jesus that is Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-28 is contradicting. So logically one of them were lied. Which one and why.
Click to expand...
“Lied” is an odd word to choose, as it suggests deliberate deception, and perhaps a malicious intent. Each narrative served an evangelical purpose. Which is factually accurate - I don’t know how anyone can say definitively. We have no way of knowing what either author knew about the historical facts as they wrote.
 
Both inferring and assuming a lot aren’t we? Lying? This view risks judging God - Who chose those men to relay His truth. How about different accounts from different cultural and linguistic viewpoints for different purposes?

We are well advised to first seek humility and understanding will follow.
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
One uses Joseph’s Father in Law so they are different.
Click to expand...
How did you know that?
And, why the author telling us that a genealogy of the stepfather of Joseph? That is not a genealogy of Jesus and no one is asking for that.
 
Last edited:
Needy1 said:
Why? Are you kidding me?
Click to expand...
LOL why would I kid you?
The gospel writers weren’t claiming to write a complete and comprehensive family tree, but that doesn’t mean what they write was a lie.
Neither one included every ancestor.
If you want an answer to your question, this is it.
If you’re looking for the “thread to unravel all of Christianity OMG!” this isn’t it.
 
Well, probably the one wasn’t malicious.
 
Last edited:
There is never only one genealogical tree. They just chose different branches to describe in their gospels.
 
Yes, some historic facts are reported and are accurate but the scriptures is not an accurate account of history.
 
Nope, that is where the Church is protected from error. The Bible is 100% protected from error (of course, that does not mean everything is written in the same genre or using the same rhetorical devices throughout–it is a library of many different books, but all teach only truth. God does not err, and “God is the author of Sacred Scripture” (CCC 105) while the human authors “consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.” (CCC 106).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top