Really, reading the Story of JesusTM over and over is just boring. Confession time! I've been neglecting my bible lately. Will I have to do penance? Extra years in purgatory?
Who knows, but I have learned some things, mostly that this is a clusterfuck, where everything is controversial. I mean everything; if it's biblical it's controversial—it's controviblical!
Who knows, but I have learned some things, mostly that this is a clusterfuck, where everything is controversial. I mean everything; if it's biblical it's controversial—it's controviblical!
The begats in Luke 3:23-28 inspired a poem but I was all ho hum that again until I thought, “I bet they don't match.” Sure enough, the ancestors in Luke aren't the same as the ones in Matthew. It's controviblical, woot!
It's also complete cowshit, a genealogy that gives only the fathers. DNA testing back then? King Solomon's in there, not one of his 700 wives getting any on the side? Color me skeptical [it's greenish purple].
* The rug rats were Jimmy, Joe, Jude, and Simon. Also, a sister named Salome, according to the Orthodox church, but that got too creepy to follow up. Mary was like 15, and Joseph was 70? Ick.
The Quartz Hill School of Theology** talks smack about the usual explanations, and then lulz
“ … such complicated methods of figuring out the relationship between the two genealogies are unnecessary. An extremely simple explanation is readily available,”
I'd summarize this E.S.E. if I could figure it out. Something about Mary's line, one of them means mothers when Luke says 'son of' and Matt says 'father of', it's the father of the mother, but it skips some of the mothers. For sure, it's a muther.
**I was gonna poke fun at them too, but when I saw this
“... what is meant by the word "literal." I do not believe that it means, when confronted by the phrase "he will sit on the right hand of the father" that we should expect to see the father's hand under his butt.”I let them off the hook. 'Cause it's funny. To me. It's 5 a. m.
No comments:
Post a Comment