>>18117120
>Either he went to Egypt or he didn't, the timeframe doesn't accommodate both events.
Sure it does. See the chronological breakdown below:
1. Jesus Taken to Temple
(Luke 2:22-39a)
2. The Flight to Egypt
(Matthew 2:12-20)
3. Jesus Moved to Nazareth
(Matthew 2:21-23) + (Luke 2:39b)
>How can he inherit kingship from Joseph if Joseph was a biological descendant and, therefore, cursed?
Joseph had the legal inheritance, he just wasn't going to be permitted to claim it since he was a descendant of Jehoiachin. He was able to give it to Jesus Christ as his legal heir.
>Why omit his son
Old Testament genealogies sometimes say that a grandfather begat a grandson.
For example, compare Numbers 26:5-9 with Deuteronomy 11:6, the latter of which skips over Pallu and goes straight from Eliab to Reuben.
Also compare 1 Chronicles 6:47 with Ezra 8:18, the latter of which goes straight from Mahli to Levi (two generations). A grandfather can be said to have begotten his grandson. This may also explain why Matthew also omitted Ahaziah, Jehoash and Amaziah in the list of kings of Judea, which can likewise be explained since they were descended from Athaliah and it took several generations before the kings were sufficiently clear of the house of Omri's curse (as it says in Exodus 20:5, "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me").
This would explain why Matthew doesn't include Ahaziah, Jehoash and Amaziah, but instead is able to directly say that Jehoram begat Uzziah (3 generations later). That kind of thing isn't a problem.
>Luke didn't delete Jeconiah.
Luke is giving Mary's genealogy in Luke 3.
>unless you confused him with his grandson who was actually cursed?
Jehoiakim is included under the phrase "and his brethren." Along with his two brothers Zedekiah and Jehoahaz. Since these brothers all reigned after Josiah's death, they are mentioned together rather than separately. This isn't difficult.
4chan Search
2 results for "d3d485b3ab8187793d3c3947a4e7757f"
>>17756768
>I don't believe I was being arrogant, brother.
So, first stating in no uncertain terms, "Neither of these texts make such a claim." Then in the same paragraph, saying you don't even understand the relevance and can only assume it was cited wrongly. If you don't understand the passage or how it's relevant, how can you say with such certainty that it doesn't make such a claim? Arrogance. The other alternative is a predetermined conclusion. You had already concluded you would contradict me so you wrote that sentence before even thinking about either passage, and only later concluded upon how you wanted to contradict me. I admit it is fully possible it was already pre-decided you would contradict and therefore you wrote that first sentence before even investigating the text of the Scripture passages, which then created the subtle inconsistency that wasn't corrected later.
>I focused on verse 17 because that's the only one I could see as possibly having to do with hell.
Yes, so according to that logic, a passage that explicitly says that the unborn who pass away before birth (verse 16) go to the same place where the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary are at rest (verse 17) is clearly not relevant at all. Sure. That's completely a good faith argument, right?
>You'll have to point out the part where you addressed the fact you're making children to be new Adams.
Nowhere, anon. I don't even know where this idea came from.
>Your behavior is remarkably uncharitable and prideful. It is unbecoming of a Christian. I am telling you in the name of Christ, repent.
So you put yourself in the place of Christ, anon? That contrasts pretty sharply with the whole "innocent inquirer" approach you had just a minute ago, unless you're a different anon.
>I don't believe I was being arrogant, brother.
So, first stating in no uncertain terms, "Neither of these texts make such a claim." Then in the same paragraph, saying you don't even understand the relevance and can only assume it was cited wrongly. If you don't understand the passage or how it's relevant, how can you say with such certainty that it doesn't make such a claim? Arrogance. The other alternative is a predetermined conclusion. You had already concluded you would contradict me so you wrote that sentence before even thinking about either passage, and only later concluded upon how you wanted to contradict me. I admit it is fully possible it was already pre-decided you would contradict and therefore you wrote that first sentence before even investigating the text of the Scripture passages, which then created the subtle inconsistency that wasn't corrected later.
>I focused on verse 17 because that's the only one I could see as possibly having to do with hell.
Yes, so according to that logic, a passage that explicitly says that the unborn who pass away before birth (verse 16) go to the same place where the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary are at rest (verse 17) is clearly not relevant at all. Sure. That's completely a good faith argument, right?
>You'll have to point out the part where you addressed the fact you're making children to be new Adams.
Nowhere, anon. I don't even know where this idea came from.
>Your behavior is remarkably uncharitable and prideful. It is unbecoming of a Christian. I am telling you in the name of Christ, repent.
So you put yourself in the place of Christ, anon? That contrasts pretty sharply with the whole "innocent inquirer" approach you had just a minute ago, unless you're a different anon.