Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: About Literalism: in what sense is Jesus son of David
Message-ID: <940@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 00:18:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.940
Posted: Mon Jul 22 00:18:54 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Jul-85 05:41:46 EDT
References: <1278@uwmacc.UUCP> <615@cybvax0.UUCP> <1293@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 25

In article <1293@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes:

>> [Mike Huybensz]
>> Then how do you account for the fact that in Matt there are 26 generations
>> between David and Joseph and that in Luke there are 41?  Each with a
>> "begat" or "son of" between?  That can't be accounted for by name changes.

>> Matt: Joseph, (9 ommitted), Zerub'babel, Sheal'tiel, (14 ommitted), David.
>> Luke: Joseph, (18 ommitted), Zerub'babel, Sheal'tiel, (20 ommitted), David.

>My posting was only a hypothesis.  It seems to have been disproven by
>another posting.  However, I'll address the point of your remarks,
>since they show your over-literalism.  :-)

>"Begat" and "son of" do not always mean "directly".  It may mean, and
>sometimes *does* mean, more distant descendants.

This strikes me as really stretching.  One normally goes one generation at a
time when establishing a lineage.  It's also not at all clear why it's
really very important to establish that both lineages are correct (or
indeed, that either is correct).

Charley Wingate  umcp-cs!mangoe

  "You want me to make a donation to the Coast Guard Youth Auxiliary!"