J
joei9375
Guest
Hi. accourding to Matthew1: 6-17 There are 26 ones between King David and Lord Jesus, But according to Luke3: 23-31 they are 41 ones. Why?
- Status
C
Cruciferi
Guest
Last edited:
C
C.Longinus
Guest
Matthew has 3 sets of 14 generations from Abraham to Jesus. I lose track of Luke every single time.
J
joei9375
Guest
Yes I did mean that.
D
De_Maria
Guest
According to the New American Bible, St. Luke traces Jesus’ geneaology through the Prophet Nathan
C
C.Longinus
Guest
This isn’t logical on so many levels. Nathan the prophet and Nathan the son of David are two different people.
D
De_Maria
Guest
This, apparently, is a viable explanation. If the Catholic Church doesn’t object, why should I?De_Maria:
This isn’t logical on so many levels. Nathan the prophet and Nathan the son of David are two different people.
Do you have a better explanation? If so, please share.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
This is only a problem if you assume the author intended to relate a genealogy in the way we would relate it. Jewish custom didn’t care about listing every single link in the chain, the mainly focused on the more notable individuals in a historic line.
C
C.Longinus
Guest
https://www.agapebiblestudy.com/Luke_Gospel/Luke_Lesson_4.htm
According to this link:
The “Nathan” in Luke’s list is not Nathan the prophet who confronted David with his sin regarding the woman Bathsheba (see 2 Sam 11:1-12:25), but David’s son Nathan who was born in Jerusalem after David repented his sin and God blessed David and Bathsheba with more children (see 2 Sam 12:25; 2 Sam 5:14; 1 Chr 3:5).
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
I really don’t want to stir up trouble and this is an honest question…
Would your salvation be harmed in any way…or your faith…if it was just a case of two different oral traditions in existence? Matthew and Luke obviously didn’t have each other’s writings to use and were writing down the oral traditions that they knew about? Must both be accurate at the same time? Is it possible for a Catholic or Christian to just say, one of them recorded a wrong oral tradition?
Would your salvation be harmed in any way…or your faith…if it was just a case of two different oral traditions in existence? Matthew and Luke obviously didn’t have each other’s writings to use and were writing down the oral traditions that they knew about? Must both be accurate at the same time? Is it possible for a Catholic or Christian to just say, one of them recorded a wrong oral tradition?
D
De_Maria
Guest
The Catholic Church hasn’t issued an infallible explanation. Until that time, you are free to believe whatever you feel is the best explanation.
P
Pattylt
Guest
Thank you. To me, a non Christian, it just made the most sense but I’m also not aware of what the Church has stated on this. 
J
joei9375
Guest
Can you Give a example from old testament that shows “Jewish custom didn’t care about listing every single link in the chain”?
C
Crocus
Guest
Joseph and Mary knew who they were and who they descended from. The important truth in this oral tradition is that Jesus is of the line of King David, as they were. There is nothing to be gained from fact checking the bible on this point.
D
De_Maria
Guest
No. There are other cases of separate oral traditions existing. In some cases, they simply complement each other. In other cases, one is false and the other is true.
Yes. They must complement each other. They must both be true because they are both considered inspired, inerrant Scripture. Thus, there must be legitimate explanations for both of them.
cont’d
D
De_Maria
Guest
cont’d
For example, there are competing traditions about St. Joseph, the foster father of Jesus and whether he was a young man or an elderly man when Jesus was born. One of them might be wrong. The Church has not spoken on that topic.
There were also competing traditions about “No salvation outside the Church”. But there is a lesser known tradition that can be traced to St. Paul which says that all people who live right are Christians. St. Justin Martyr said"
We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; First Apology Chapter 60.
Although they seem to contradict, they don’t, because the role of the Church was apparently misunderstood.
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
The Catechism says:
[846](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/846.htm’)
How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
The Church has spoken and removed the apparent contradiction.
As for the one currently being discussed, the Church has not spoken. As Catholics, we follow the Teaching of the Church which is based in the Word of God which is passed down to us in Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition includes the oral and the written word. The written word of God is called Scripture or the Bible.
I hope that wasn’t too confusing.
There are many oral and written traditions. But, when we write them with a little “t”, that means that they have not been confirmed by the Magisterium. They might be true, they might be false.
For example, there are competing traditions about St. Joseph, the foster father of Jesus and whether he was a young man or an elderly man when Jesus was born. One of them might be wrong. The Church has not spoken on that topic.
There were also competing traditions about “No salvation outside the Church”. But there is a lesser known tradition that can be traced to St. Paul which says that all people who live right are Christians. St. Justin Martyr said"
We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; First Apology Chapter 60.
Although they seem to contradict, they don’t, because the role of the Church was apparently misunderstood.
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
The Catechism says:
[846](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/846.htm’) How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
The Church has spoken and removed the apparent contradiction.
As for the one currently being discussed, the Church has not spoken. As Catholics, we follow the Teaching of the Church which is based in the Word of God which is passed down to us in Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition includes the oral and the written word. The written word of God is called Scripture or the Bible.
I hope that wasn’t too confusing.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
Not offhand, no, but here’s an article that delves into a better explanation than I could give:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-genealogies-of-christ
P
Pattylt
Guest
Not confusing at all. Thank you very much for taking the time to thoroughly answer! Appreciated! I understand the commitment to the HS inspiring the writings and didn’t consider that. Silly me.
Thanks again!
Thanks again!
D
De_Maria
Guest
The New Testament was issued by the Catholic Church. That’s infallible. Or inerrant, if you prefer.
All the Ecumenical Councils are infallible.
The extraordinary Papal pronouncements on the Marian Doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
I think you might be confusing the infallible Doctrines of the Catholic Church, which is basically everything that has been carried forward from the Apostles with those last two so-called “extraordinary” pronouncements.
The rule of thumb that I follow is that everything the Catholic Church Teaches officially, is infallible.
for more info,see this site. Here’s an excerpt:
To the first category belong “truths taught as divinely revealed.” Some theologians call these truths “infallible dogma” or “definitive dogma.” These are truths contained directly in the Word of God and which the magisterium has affirmed to be divinely revealed. They are infallible and, to them the faithful owe the “obedience of faith”[7] or “divine and Catholic faith.” This second formula is found in Vatican I, which taught that both the Extraordinary (or Solemn) magisterium and the ordinary and universal magisterium are instruments of transmitting infallible dogma:
- Status