More proof that Biblical "timeframe" is ridiculous, page 2

While we're on the subject of Mathew's Fake Midrashic Genealogy....have any of you noticed that there are SPECIFICALLY NAMED 5 LOOSE WOMEN that are listed in Matthew's "fake lists of 14" (he leaves out most of the Kings of JUDAH who reigned between 690 BC and 630 BC by the way to retain his D-V-D gemmatrial magic number 14 for the "Messianic House of David"--compare the list in 1 Chronicles chapter 3 to see the DIFFERENCE) and moreeover, that ALL THE WOMEN MENTIONED IN THE LIST ARE BASICALLY, er...well...WHORES?

e.g. FIRST THERE'S Ms. RAHAB THE HARLOT (although Matthew does call her RACHAB), TAMAR WHO SEDUCES JUDAH BY DRESSING AS A PROSTITUTE, THEN THERE's RUTH THE MOABITESS WHO UNCOVERS THE NAKEDNESS OF WITH HER MOTHER IN LAW'S KINSMAN ON A THRESHING FLOOR AND MARRIES HIM, THEN OF COURSE THERE'S BATH-SHEBITI THE JEBUSITE PRINCESS (=BathSheba) OR AS SHE IS PEJORATIVELY REFERRED TO IN MATTHEW AS "THE WIFE OF URIAH THE HITTITE" WHO COMMITTED ADULTERY WITH DAVID....and LAST BUT NOT LEAST THERE's MARY, THE MOTHER OF "JESUS"... who apparently gave premature birth to a son amidst some kind of Fornication Scandal (cf: John's Gospel: "WE were not born of Fornication: WE have one father !") .

AS C.K. BARRETT USED TO ASK US: What is MATTHEW trying to tell us here?

Either way, Matthew's Genealogy is not in any way accurate, but fudged with the numbers in order to get to the magic groupings of 14 generations (even though the last set seems only to have 13 generations for some reason)....

Daviddic claims to Messaihship could only go through the paternal line, so any specious ramblings about Matthew and Luke deriving their contradictory lists through Mary's line would be illegitimate anyway...and the text cannot be forced to be read that way (unless you stand it on its head).

Since the Davids (from the tribelets of Judah) and the Aaronids (from the tribe of Levi) did NOT intermarry (Levites were forbidden to intermarry outside the tribe), the idea that "Yeshua" was some kind of hybrid genetic mix of Levite and Daviddic blood is quite impossible (and as the Dead Sea Scrolls mentioned, there was supposed to be ONE MESSIAH SON OF DAVID and ANOTHER MESSIAH SON OF AARON, i.e. two Messiahs, one priestly one kingly based on the phrase "Ye shall become a KINGDOM AND PRIESTS" in the SamPent and the Vorlage to the LXX).

Perhaps theologically (but obvioiusly not historically) this would be a neat solution to the "problem of the Cross" i.e. the idea of the High Priest Messiah who claimed to be King sacrificiing himself upon the altar of blood for the sins of the world etc. as we see in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and whoever wrote that book (certainly NOT Saul of Tarsus---it uses a vastly different Greek style) may have wished to see the TWO MESSIAHS mixed into one person---but this is "hagaddic midrashic legend" , not "positivistic history", and the Greek author of Luke (whoever he was) is especially fond of this kind of loose midrashic symbolism in his birth narratives which gets all kinds of basic historical facts wrong in order to make a midrashic story to place the birth of "Iesous" in Bethlechem to fulfil the prophecy in Micah chapter 6 (i.e. his fable version of the Tax Enrollment Edict of Quirinius which occured in AD 6, not during the reign of Herod the Great who died in BC 4) etc.

Don't forget the Gospels are HAGGADIC MIDRASH not history, and if you don't know what that is, go look it up...!