Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Genealogy Of Jesus

The author(s) of the bible take a peculiar interest in the ancestors of Jesus. In fact, they're so interested, they write two independent and different genealogies for the same person.

Two interesting pieces of trivia about this:
  • Shouldn't a person only have one father? Surely Joseph can have only one father, unless "alternative lifestyles" were popular in the late Roman Republic.
  • It's odd that the bible spends so much time describing Joseph's parentage, considering that the modern Christian faith insists that Jesus and Joseph have no biological relationship whatsoever.
It's almost as though the author(s) of the bible didn't know that Jesus was born of a god in a literal sense. It's seems they thought he was a "Son of God" in the sense that we owe our loyalty to God as we owe our loyalties to our biological father. After all, he was known to speak in metaphor.

Anyway, for those who believe that Jesus was physically born of a god and a human, where did he get half of his genetic data? Does your omnipotent, Omnipresent Energy Field God have 46 chromosomes?

This would make the idea of Jesus fathering children even more troubling.


Anonymous said...

i guess i am writing this drunk and i may never get a response or chance to talk to you about this in person, but, today's genealogy and proof of it outside of today's society is something that only people can dream of. the fact that you say there is one "author" of the bible i think is funny, a person could put many gospels together (excluding other discovered gospels) is a truth but the fact that you are moving off of 2 different stories that might talk about a different genealogy seems very bias to me. i am not one to take the bible literally or believe every word. you seem to take it to a point where you feel like proving religion is wrong and or incorrect; i disagree with you on that. if you think humans even understand 1% of what life has to offer of you are very naive. again sorry about the grammar, i know you are a fan of it.

Carsonist said...

Hmmm... I guess I didn't really focus on my point. What I was really trying to get at is that Jesus may not have actually been insisting that he was the literal son of god.

I don't claim to know everything, and I'm glad that people don't take the bible literally, since I think that position is untenable.

I took care to write "authors(s)" of the bible" so both sides could be happy. I wasn't trying to be confrontational on that point.