<quoted text>The Jews have always kept track of who "begat" who and they know he existed. Einstein, who waffled on the issue of belief in a "god" during his lifetime did, absolutely, believe that Jesus existed in the flesh as a great teacher.
I don't see you hypocrites begging for anybody to show us all Buddha's birth certificate. Lack of legal papers is NOT proof of a man's nonexistence. There have been plenty of people who have never had their births documented, why don't you deny their existence too?
Nor does it explain the discrepancy of fifteen generations. If a generation is, say, 25 years, that means one spouse was older than the other by about 375 years.<quoted text>
Oh poor baby, life isn't fair is it. Do you really not know why no one is asking for Buddha's birth certificate? Really?
Problem: Genealogies in Matthew and Luke contradict each other
Verses: Matthew 1:1-17, Luke 3:23-38; Status: Minor
This is one of the most well-known problems for Biblical inerrancy. Matthew's and Luke's gospels both trace the ancestry of Joseph (husband of Mary, mother of Jesus) back to King David, and Luke continues all the way back to Adam. But their genealogies are completely different.
The standard reply seems to be that one or other of the genealogies is actually of Mary, not Joseph. Yet it's unclear why the text can't just explicitly say this.
Nor will they decide on *which* genealogy is Mary's.