Geneology?

[crazy-tiger]

I'm dropping this one in here, but I'll also be dropping it in The Lion's Den. (for the fun factor )

 

Something got me buzzing about the Geneology of Jesus today, and I thought I'd check to see if the one's given in Matthew and Luke agree with each other.

 

Well... Thanks to the fact that one goes back through the generations while the other goes forward, it took me a little bit longer than I expected, but it brought something to light.

 

They don't agree...

 

 

Now, I've mentioned to some people about how Joseph seems to have 2 fathers... the given answer, which is indeed possible, is that it's one person but one of the names was his SECOND name.

 

I'll admit, it's possible... it doesn't make much sense, but it's possible. (would you give someones name like that? nope...)

 

What I found today, and it'll be old news to some, is that not only do they not agree on various names, but on how many generations there were between Abraham and Jesus. (being that only one of them goes any further back...)

 

Following the list, they match up all the way through until they reach David. At that point, they split. Luke has his son being Nathan, while Matthew says it's Solomon.

Again, it could just be different names for the same person, but from that point on there are more "begats" in Luke than there are in Matthew...

 

The next name that matches is Shealtiel... 13 generations later according to Matthew, but 21 later in Luke. The next name matches (Zerubbabel) but then they split again until they reach Joseph... some 10 generations later in Matthew, but 19 later in Luke...

 

Overall, there are 17 more generations in Luke than there are in Matthew, and only 2 names match between David and Joseph.

 

 

 

Anyone out there feel like explaining this?

[crazy-tiger]

This is what I mean...

 

Luke 3

23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon, 33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham... (ends here due to Matthew going no further back)

 

Matthew 1

2Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, 4Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, 6and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife, Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, 8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, 9Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, 11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon. 12After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, 14Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Eliud, 15Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, 16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

(Mis-matches shown in red.)

 

It's one heck of a problem, and I don't think there is any answer... but I want to see what people come up with.

[Ouroboros]

One explanation I was told (in Bible school and other places), was that one geneology was Joseph's, and the other was Mary's but they put it in Joseph's name because that "was the tradition back then." And I have not been able to confirm the "tradition" being so.

[Checkmate]

And again, as I said over in The Lion's Den, it should be Mary's lineage, not Joseph's that is traced. Joseph is persona non grata when it comes to "Jesus".

 

And NO, neither lineage is of "Mary". She isn't mentioned in either, and women's lineage weren't taken into account.

[scotter]

On Matthew:

 

There were 14 generations between Abraham and David; 14 between David and the deportation to Babylon, and 14 generations between the deportation to Babylon and the messiah Jesus.

 

It was a midrash thing. Number 7 in Jewish culture is symbol of divinity. So are multiples of 7. Matthew arranged this to actuate the significance of Jesus the Messiah of providence.

 

Verse 8: on Joram (Jehoram) the father of Uzziah:

 

1 Chron 3:10-12 Joram was not the father of Uzziah, but his great great grandfather (Uzziah was called Azariah in Chron)

10: The descendants of Solomon: Rehobo'am, Abi'jah his son, Asa his son, Jehosh'aphat his son,

11: Joram his son, Ahazi'ah his son, Jo'ash his son,

12: Amazi'ah his son, Azari'ah his son, Jotham his son,

 

If Matthew were to include all the generations between Joram and Uzziah (Amaziah, Joash, Ahaziah), he would no longer be able to claim that there were 14 generations between David and the deportation to Babylon.

(Materials are from the Ehrman book.)

 

Matthew manipulated Jesus’s genealogy. – I commented on this with a plain tone, not with a derogatory tone. Again, it was a legitimate thing to do in that environment (see my Jesus as Messiah thread).

 

‘Hope that helps the readers to understand more on the background of gospels and justification of Jesus by Matthew as the Messiah.

 

(Edit: I just read that Mythra covered this '14 generations' arrangement in Lion's Den also. Anyway readers who would like to delve further can go for Ehrman's book with beneficial coverage on other aspects of the Gospels.)

 

-----

 

That said, I believe there is divinity in Christianity and the New Testament. To comment on IprayIcan on the other 'Trinity' thread, billions of Christians are not believing a lie. You strive to follow it, and you reach God. I hope I make my thinking comprehensible to Christians.

 

Biblical literal Christians, yours belief is a religious structure, that is the way I see it. In this religious structure you believe Jesus as the Messiah, you believe he died for your sins and you gained eternal life. And you reach God.

 

An observant Christian is righteous before God.

 

Get to know the origins of your religion. And you don't necessarily need to hold onto "mine is the literal and exclusive truth; not believing Jesus, and other (classical) religions' followers are of Satan and destination Hell....."

 

I plan to write more on that after I make the final post in the Jesus as Messiah thread.

[Kuroikaze]

One explanation I was told (in Bible school and other places), was that one geneology was Joseph's, and the other was Mary's but they put it in Joseph's name because that "was the tradition back then." And I have not been able to confirm the "tradition" being so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I find this explanation really funny, because if you take this explanation as true the bible becomes worthless. If there were people who edited this passage in between the authors writting it and us reading it, how do we know they didn't edit something else too, in fact how do we know they didn't make up 90% of it for that matter.

 

Every part of the bible becomes suspected of editing.

[daniel_1012]

This is what I mean...

 

Luke 3

23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon, 33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham... (ends here due to Matthew going no further back)

 

Matthew 1

2Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram,  4Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon,  Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, 6and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife, Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, 8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, 9Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, 11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon. 12After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, 14Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Eliud, 15Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, 16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

(Mis-matches shown in red.)

 

It's one heck of a problem, and I don't think there is any answer... but I want to see what people come up with.

97102[/snapback]

 

There is quite the answer, and you have been given it...

 

However, I see that you are still highlighting Jeconiah, as though that were some form of proof that Jeconiah would have have kids.

 

Jeremiah 22:28-30

 

28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?

 

29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD.

 

30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

 

I want you to notice first off, verse 28. "werefore are THEY cast out, he AND HIS SEED, and are cast into a land which THEY know not?

 

Then, in verse 30 when Jeremiah says, "write ye this man childless," it is OBVIOUSLY a metophore to the break from the thrown that would be made at Jeconiah. This is obviouse because Jeremiah just said in 2 verses prior, within prior continuous thought, that Jeconiah had seed, and that THEY were cast out along with him. This doesn't say that he would not have children... it says that they would not sit on the thrown.

 

When interpretting scripture, if you are to do it properly... one must read before, after, and all around it... also to whom, when, and where is it being spoken?

 

As far as the geneology. One is the father-in-law (Mary's blood father), and the other is Joseph's blood father.

[SkepticOfBible]

One is the father-in-law (Mary's blood father),

99528[/snapback]

Where does it say Father-in-law. None of the current translations agree with you?

[crazy-tiger]

There is quite the answer, and you have been given it...

 

However, I see that you are still highlighting Jeconiah, as though that were some form of proof that Jeconiah would have have kids.

 

Jeremiah 22:28-30

 

28  Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?

 

29  O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD.

 

30  Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

 

I want you to notice first off, verse 28.  "werefore are THEY cast out, he AND HIS SEED, and are cast into a land which THEY know not?

 

Then, in verse 30 when Jeremiah says, "write ye this man childless," it is OBVIOUSLY a metophore to the break from the thrown that would be made at Jeconiah.  This is obviouse because Jeremiah just said in 2 verses prior, within prior continuous thought, that Jeconiah had seed, and that THEY were cast out along with him.  This doesn't say that he would not have children... it says that they would not sit on the thrown.

Once more... I have never said that Jeconiah wouldn't have children. I have only said that God declared that Jeconiah and his children would NEVER SIT ON THE THRONE OF DAVID!

 

Get this through your head... by having Jeconiah in the geneology of Christ, he is NOT ABLE to sit on the throne of David which is one of the requirements of being the Messiah!

 

Every single time you mention Jeconiah and his seed would not sit on the throne of David, you are agreeing with me that JESUS would not sit on the throne of David... meaning that you agree that Jesus was NOT the Messiah.

When interpretting scripture, if you are to do it properly... one must read before, after, and all around it... also to whom, when, and where is it being spoken?

 

As far as the geneology.  One is the father-in-law (Mary's blood father), and the other is Joseph's blood father.

99528[/snapback]

Hello??

 

Since Jesus was a VIRGIN BIRTH, THERE WAS NO BLOOD FATHER! Every time you say Joseph was Jesus's blood father, you deny the virgin birth...

[SkepticOfBible]

This is from the Lion's Den regarding the debate of Genealogy

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...ndpost&p=100964

 

 

I would ask though, that even if you have already stated it previously in your post... try to reference *just where in the Bible* you are talking about, whenever you say something like... "this must be." It would be helpful.

I always try give scriptural proof and links for my arguements. Please tell me from which of my post have I not given scriptural references. I can definately post it.

 

2 Sam 5:13-15

And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David. And these be the names of those that were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shammuah, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, Ibhar also, and Elishua, and Nepheg, and Japhia, 16 And Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphalet.

 

The geneology, which is through Mary, which is given in Luke, goes through Nathan.

 

Okay, I think if I make a assertion I always ensure I have scriptural proof on me. However you are not doing the same.

 

It's time you start proving your assertion scripturally. If you can't then all it proves is that your assertions are nothing more than speculation.

 

Prove biblically that the Geneology given in Luke is through Mary (ie Mary is the daughter of Eli)

 

Prove biblically that the throne went to Nathan, and not to Solomon(even though God promised it)

 

Give me one example from the OT where the tribal identies/priesthood or (complex genealogies like the one allegedly given in Luke 3) goes through the woman

 

Luke 3:31

Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

 

I know you don't like it, and won't accept this reason... but until I find a more tangible answer, I have to accept that Luke must have been referring to Mary's line

 

How is this for a tangible answer "There is an error, and that there is no evidence in in the book of Luke that he is refering to Mary's Line"

By speculating you can pretty much rationalise away any problem.

 

otherwise it is irreconsilable... we both know that. So, we agree there. If Matt and Luke are referring to the exact same literal birth father of Joseph, there is an irreconsiable error.

 

Well off course there is an error. Christians will not admit it.

Hey I did not decide which books would go in the bible. It was decided by a group of men by vote. Perhaps these people should have looked at the books carefully before declaring them as "God's infallible word".

 

However, as you notice... they both got it *exactly the same* From David, and through David's ancestorial past. So, appearently... they were both able to get the hardest part correct (that is the further you go back geneologically, the harder it is to remain accurate). This natural observation also is something that leads me to believe that Luke can't be referring to the same father Matthew refers to... Matt and Luke's accuracy concerning geneology pre-David, is exactly the same.

 

Oh you see the contradiction. So instead of honestly agreeing that there is an error, you try to defend the "inerrency" of the bible, by rationalising that Luke is talking about Mary's geneaology even though the author of Luke indicate otherwise.

 

Would you accept the following the speculation from me

"The Genealogy given in Matthew is actually from Mary, even though I can't prove it scriptually."

 

The author of Luke states in the preamble of his Gospel that his story represents the facts as they happened.

Luke also admits that he wasn't an eyewitness, but he investigated everything carefully and has a perfect understanding of all the actual events. Luke 1:1-4

Luke says he wrote his history so that his reader might know the certainty of the things he had been taught.

Luke says absolutely nothing that instructs his reader to seek outside sources for more details or for a different spin on the story.

Luke's writings are the source his reader should use for accurate facts concerning Jesus.

 

At the time Luke was supposed to have written his inspired history of actual events, he probably didn't anticipate that future councils(~360 C.E. to 1563 C.E.) of clerics would decide which writings would make it into the official word of God, and would include a conflicting Genealogy.

 

The logic for including only four Gospels(out of many) into the official "Bible" or church canon is often attributed to St. Irenaeus of Lyons(late second century), who was supposed to have deemed four the appropriate number because there were four corners of the earth and four divine winds.

It was clerical men who defined which stories were inspired by God, and there is nothing whatsoever that proves they were inspired by God when they selected or voted.

 

Most likely both Luke and Matthew made up the Genealogy. Half the names given in the Genealogies don't even appear in the bible. The authors were trying to link Jesus to David just like there are so many people today who try to link themselves to Elvis.

 

So, I use both. One for Mary, one for Joseph. I realize we are going to disagree here... but we will just to agree to disagree.

 

Dispite the fact I have proven to you the following

1)There is no scriptural evidence that Mary is the daughter of Heli

2)That tribal identities are passed exclusively through Males

3)That the Messiah had to be physical descendant of David/Solomon and Asa

4)That Nathan does not even deserves the throne because God chose Solomon as David's successor

5)That the Geneology in Matthew is not a righteous branch of David

6)That neither Mary nor Joseph deserve the throne, hence they cannot pass on something that they don't own.

7)That even your own made up rule doesn't even applies to Jeconiah, since he did have children

 

In spite of all the above, you still want to maintain the view that Mary is the daughter of Heli, and kingship can be passed through the female.

 

Well I can't make up your mind for you, but it seems you chosen to believe a lie.

Does it make you happy? Off course it does.

 

But don't expects others to believe the same lie and remain happy.

 

Let me ask you this

Would you accept this kind of haphazard explanation for any other religious book?

 

Paul doesn't have to say she was a virgin for Mary to have been one. She was a woman, afterall, and Paul is 100% correct when he says, "born of a woman."

 

Are you gonna assert that there is no difference between a woman and a virgin or are you trying to say that Paul cannot differiate between a woman and a virgin.

 

Mary became a "woman", after her marriage to Joseph. Paul was not aware of a virgin birth, because he doesn't indicate it anywhere in his writings.

 

If I told you I drove to work in my Ford truck, but I didn't say it was a Ford Ra

anger, that doesn't mean I made a mistake in my statement that I drove to work in a Ford truck.

 

There is a big difference between a truck(woman) and a car(virgin). You would be lying if you said that you drove a truck instead of a car. Although they do come under the sub category of vehicle(female)

Deut 22:23

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

 

cont... Deut 22:24

Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

 

1) The Holy Spirit is not a man, therefore is not held under this.

 

I don't imagine (by mind or scripture) that their confrontation sexual. Furthermore, today by scientific advances and understanding, we have the ability to artificial insiminate cows (or any living being as far as I know). Does that mean we are having sex with them? No, and nor are men accused of sexually violating cows by doing this. (We can do this with humans too of course). And, I imagine Mary was quite honored to miraculously conceive the savior of mankind, though she was merely a vessel.

 

And if you look at the law, there are 2 parties to the crime. The male and female. I'll give it to you that the God was outside the law, because of the divine indentity. But Mary was human, and the laws applied to her. She was bethrothen to Joseph

I don't remember her ever complaining when she found out this was the case.

Just because she did not complain does not mean that she was not a party to the crime.

 

We know nothing about the author of Mattew as he never identifies himself. "Matthew" does not agree with the genealogies given in 1 Chron 3.

 

Sure it does. Levi is Matthew. He was a tax collector.

 

And just where does the author Matthew says that he is Mattew the tax collector. If I can recall the title of Matthew wasn't designated untill the late 2nd Centuary. The book of Matthew is just one of the books from the bible where the authors are unknowns.

 

Apostle and evangelist. The name Matthew is derived from the Hebrew Mattija, being shortened to Mattai in post-Biblical Hebrew. In Greek it is sometimes spelled Maththaios, B D, and sometimes Matthaios, CEKL, but grammarians do not agree as to which of the two spellings is the original. Matthew is spoken of five times in the New Testament; first in Matthew 9:9, when called by Jesus to follow Him, and then four times in the list of the Apostles, where he is mentioned in the seventh (Luke 6:15, and Mark 3:18), and again in the eighth place (Matthew 10:3, and Acts 1:13). The man designated in Matthew 9:9, as "sitting in the custom house", and "named Matthew" is the same as Levi, recorded in Mark 2:14, and Luke 5:27, as "sitting at the receipt of custom". The account in the three Synoptics is identical, the vocation of Matthew-Levi being alluded to in the same terms. Hence Levi was the original name of the man who was subsequently called Matthew

<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10056b.htm>

 

Do you even read the source that you are quoting.

Of Matthew's subsequent career we have only inaccurate or legendary data

Just where does it say in the above source that author of Matthew is the same as Matthew the tax collector.

All it says that the vocation of Matthew is a former tax collector and gospel agree with each other.

Just think about it, if the Matthew the tax collector was actually the author why would he refer himself in 3rd person in Matthew 9:9?

Most biblical scholars and study bibles(eg NIV) say that it is quite possible the authors of Mark and Matthew refered to a common source, namely the "Gospel of Q". But yet again this has not been proven.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_q.htm

 

Then, the rest about accepting some and not all of "church fathers" as canon, would honestly take more time to research than I have time before I leave work.

 

The canon was hardly politically neutral. And it would very naive to believe that there was no political agenda when the bible was canonised.

Christians would always proclaim "The bible is the word of God", however they forget to mention the truth"the bible is the word of God as edited by Men"

[iprayican]

I couldn't resist adding to your discussion.

 

This view is supported by Morris, Haley, Auberlen, Ebrard, Greswell, Kurtz, Lange, Lightfoot, Michaelis, Neander, Robinson, Surenhasius, Wieseler, Godet, Lyons, Lenski and other respected scholars that have written on this topic and from such books, footnotes and web articles; I have compiled the following and agree.

 

Matthew gives Joseph's, and Luke gives Mary's, genealogy

 

This is supported by several early Christian writers- Origen, Irenawus, Tertullian, Athanasius, and Justin Martyr.

 

It is indirectly confirmed by Jewish tradition. The Tamudic writers concerning the pains of hell, wrote the statement that Mary the daughter of Heli was seen in the infernal regions, suffering horrid tortures. This illustrates, not only the bitter animosity of the Jews toward the Christian religion, but also the fact that, according to received Jewish tradition, Mary was the daughter of Heli; hence, that it is her genealogy which we find in Luke.

 

This shows us in what way Christ was the "Son of David." If Mary was the daughter of Heli, then Jesus was strictly a descendant of David, not only legally, through Mary's husband, but actually by direct personal descent through his mother.

 

Mary, since she had no brothers, was an heiress; therefore her husband, according to Jewish law, was reckoned among her father's family, as his son. So that Joseph was the actual son of Jacob and the legal son of Heli. In a word, Matthew sets forth Jesus' right to the theocratic crown; Luke, his natural pedigree. The latter employs Joseph's name, instead of Mary's in accordance with the Israelite law that "genealogies must be reckoned by fathers, not mothers.'

 

"Begat" should be understood in an ancestral, rather than immediate paternal sense. There are three names that were omitted between Jehoram and Uzziah- Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah (II Chronicles 22:1,11; 24:1,27) Jehoiakim is omitted between Hosiah and Jechoniah (II Chronicles 36:4), who is also called Coniah and Jehoiachin. The apparent reason for doing this was as a memory

device: to have three groups of fourteen generations from Abraham to Christ (Matthew 1:17)

 

It was Jechoniah whose sins caused God to cut his seed off from ever sitting on David's throne (Jeremiah 22:24-30) Yet God promised that David would "never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel." (Jeremiah 33:17) Thus, Jechoniah's royal line of descendants is listed here to show the legal right of Joseph, the foster father of Jesus, to David's throne (Matthew 1:16) but neither Joseph nor any others of Jechoniah's seed could ever have the spiritual right to the throne. That right must be carried through Mary's ancestry.

 

You note in Matthew 1:16 Matthew is careful here to avoid saying that Joseph "begat" Christ, departing from the formula used for the other ancestors of Jesus. In order to unveil this “Gospel gem,” one must consult the language in which the New Testament was written originally—Greek. The English phrase “of whom was born Jesus” is translated from the Greek relative feminine pronoun (hes). In this verse, the feminine gender can refer only to Mary. Biblical genealogies regularly emphasize the fathers who sire a child, but here Matthew indicates that Jesus received his humanity only from his mother. Thus, Joseph is excluded from any involvement in the birth of Christ, the Son of God.

 

While Matthew’s genealogy clearly establishes Christ as the legal heir to the throne by tracing His ancestry down through the royal line of the kings of Israel all the way to Joseph the carpenter (and to Jesus), he still emphasizes Mary as the biological parent “of whom” Jesus was born.

 

In Luke 3:23 Actually the word "son" is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either "son" or "son-in-law" in this context. The two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David-Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15) thus Christ inherits the legal right to the throne of David through his foster father Joseph, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), thus her line carrying the seed of David, since Solomon's line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah's sins (Jeremiah 22:24-30 and 33:15-17)

 

Lest you think it is unreasonable to conclude that a son-in-law could be called a son, remember that it is recorded in 1 Samuel 24:16 that King Saul (David’s father-in-law—1 Samuel 18:27) called David “son.” The term “son” actually has a variety of meanings in the Bible. It can signify: (1) son by actual birth; (2) grandson; (3) descendent; (4) son-in-law; or (5) son by creation, as in the case of Adam (Luke 3:38). All indications are that in Luke 3:23, the phrase “son of Heli” (literally “of Heli”) refers to Heli’s son-in-law, Joseph. The following evidence clearly supports this rationale.

 

The two narrations of the virgin birth are from two different perspectives. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only from Joseph’s perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Mary’s point of view. It makes sense, then, that Matthew focused on Joseph’s lineage in his genealogy, whereas Luke paid careful attention to Mary’s ancestors.

 

Because the phrase “as was supposed” (Luke 3:23) is used to describe Jesus’ relationship with his earthly father, one automatically should see that something is different about this genealogy from the one recorded in Matthew chapter one. The phrase “Jesus…being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph” (emp. added) is indicating that He was not really one of Joseph’s biological sons, even though the public commonly assumed such.

 

Every name in the Greek text of Luke’s genealogy, with the exception of Joseph, is preceded by the definite article “the” (e.g. the Heli, the Matthat). Although not obvious in our English translations, this stands out to anyone reading the Greek. As nineteenth-century biblical scholar Frederic Godet stated: “The omission of the article puts the name (Joseph) outside of the genealogical series” In fact, the parentheses in our versions containing the words “(as was supposed),” most likely should be extended to include the name “Joseph” Remember that parentheses have been added in our English Bibles by translators for the sake of “clarity.” In this situation, however, it seems translators should have extended the parentheses so that the text reads: “And Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed of Joseph) the son of Heli, the son of Matthat….”

 

When one’s studies take him beyond our English translations into the original language of Scripture (in this case, Greek), he begins to realize all the more that Luke’s genealogy is tracing the line of Joseph’s wife, even though Joseph’s name is used.

 

These two separate genealogies of Jesus Christ were, in fact, absolutely necessary in the establishment of Christ as the Messiah. The Messianic title, “Son of David,” that so frequently was applied to Christ, required dual proof that: (1) He was entitled to the throne, as Matthew’s genealogy indicates; and (2) He literally had descended from David, as Luke’s genealogy demonstrates. The verses in Matthew clearly establish Christ as the legal heir to the throne by tracing His ancestry down through the royal line of the kings of Israel, with Luke’s account demonstrating that He was an actual descendant of David (through Nathan, the brother of Solomon—1 Chronicles 3:5). Jesus literally was born from one of David’s virgin “daughters.”

 

The cannon and who wrote what book is a whole other topic at the very least.

[crazy-tiger]

It was Jechoniah whose sins caused God to cut his seed off from ever sitting on David's throne (Jeremiah 22:24-30)  Yet God promised that David would "never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel." (Jeremiah 33:17)  Thus, Jechoniah's royal line of descendants is listed here to show the legal right of Joseph, the foster father of Jesus, to David's throne (Matthew 1:16) but neither Joseph nor any others of Jechoniah's seed could ever have the spiritual right to the throne.  That right must be carried through Mary's ancestry.

All that means is that the Messiah cannot have Jeconiah in their ancestry...

 

Remember, according to God, Jeconiah and his seed were removed from the royal line. Claiming that one of Jeconiahs line could be the Messiah (who would rule over all Israel) is to claim that the curse put on Jeconiah's line is not the curse that God put upon it.

You note in Matthew 1:16 Matthew is careful here to avoid saying that Joseph "begat" Christ, departing from the formula used for the other ancestors of Jesus.  In order to unveil this “Gospel gem,” one must consult the language in which the New Testament was written originally—Greek. The English phrase “of whom was born Jesus” is translated from the Greek relative feminine pronoun (hes). In this verse, the feminine gender can refer only to Mary. Biblical genealogies regularly emphasize the fathers who sire a child, but here Matthew indicates that Jesus received his humanity only from his mother. Thus, Joseph is excluded from any involvement in the birth of Christ, the Son of God.

This is a problem, since Jewish tradition and the prophecies of the Messiah state very clearly that he would just be another human... The claim of the virgin birth and the immaculate conception shows that Jesus wasn't the Messiah at all.

While Matthew’s genealogy clearly establishes Christ as the legal heir to the throne by tracing His ancestry down through the royal line of the kings of Israel all the way to Joseph the carpenter (and to Jesus), he still emphasizes Mary as the biological parent “of whom” Jesus was born.

Ahem... Matthew's geneology does no such thing. What it does is show that Jesus was NOT a legal heir to the throne and would NEVER be allowed by God to take the throne. (Jeremiah 22:24-30 specifically verse 30... Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man [that] shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.)

 

Matthew's geneology does nothing more than prove that Jesus couldn't be the Messiah...

In Luke 3:23 Actually the word "son" is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either "son" or "son-in-law"  in this context.  The two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David-Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15) thus Christ inherits the legal right to the throne of David through his foster father Joseph, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), thus her line carrying the seed of David, since Solomon's line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah's sins (Jeremiah 22:24-30 and 33:15-17)

Wrong... Solomon's line was NOT refused the throne, just any of Solomon's line that descended through Jeconiah...

Since Solomon had more than one child, his line was still extant and able to fulfill God's promise.

 

What was God's promise? That the rulers of Israel would all be from Solomon's line... this rules out any legal claim to the throne from Luke's geneology, since it runs through Nathan instead of Solomon, thus Luke's geneology proves nothing more than that Jesus couldn't have been the Messiah. (1 Chronicles 22:9-10)

These two separate genealogies of Jesus Christ were, in fact, absolutely necessary in the establishment of Christ as the Messiah. The Messianic title, “Son of David,” that so frequently was applied to Christ, required dual proof that: (1) He was entitled to the throne, as Matthew’s genealogy indicates; and (2) He literally had descended from David, as Luke’s genealogy demonstrates. The verses in Matthew clearly establish Christ as the legal heir to the throne by tracing His ancestry down through the royal line of the kings of Israel, with Luke’s account demonstrating that He was an actual descendant of David (through Nathan, the brother of Solomon—1 Chronicles 3:5). Jesus literally was born from one of David’s virgin “daughters.”

101366[/snapback]

Once more... the presence of Jeconiah in the geneology from Matthew shows that Jesus was NOT the legal heir to the throne of David, while the geneology in Luke shows that it's through the wrong son of David.

 

Whether he was a child of David's line or not is a moot point... Both geneologies go AGAINST what is required of the Messiah. That he be of SOLOMON'S line and that he not be of JACONIAH'S line.

 

 

Conclusion? If EITHER of the geneologies are correct, Jesus was NOT the Messiah.

[SkepticOfBible]

I couldn't resist adding to your discussion. 

101366[/snapback]

 

Before you start jumping into discussion I highly recommend you read the previous post. I have already addressed many of the issues that you raised

 

Here is the link from which this disussion came from

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...ndpost&p=100887

 

Matthew gives Joseph's, and Luke gives Mary's, genealogy

Unfortunatelate the scripture disagree with you

 

It is indirectly confirmed by Jewish tradition.  The Tamudic writers concerning the pains of hell, wrote the statement that Mary the daughter of Heli was seen in the infernal regions, suffering horrid tortures. 

 

The Talmud is not part of the canon. Is the bible not able to support it's own claims?

 

Mary was the daughter of Heli;  

Please show me scriptural proof of this

 

(1) He was entitled to the throne, as Matthew’s genealogy indicates;

This prevents him because of the curse on Jeconiah

 

and (2) He literally had descended from David, as Luke’s genealogy demonstrates.

 

Again this prevents him because

1)Female cannot pass on Kingship

2)The Genealogy fails to pass through Solomon and Asa

3)And Mary is not mentioned in genealogy

 

Please don't rebut this post but rather the link I have given above

 

The following site is good summary for my post

 

http://torahatlanta.com/articles/Problems%...;%20Lineage.htm

[daniel_1012]

Was my post deleted... I don't see it?

[daniel_1012]

iprayican, thanks, very helpful. I knew the part about where it said "as was supposed." I don't know why I didn't point that out.

[iprayican]

I see your pain. You raise some good questions. So, I am going to take a look at all those begats in comparison to what other begats there are in the OT, what the early church fathers said with regard to these passages, compare the prophesies of the Messiah especially those that would connecting the seed of woman and the virgin birth, I want to take a look to see if there were any conditions of obedience or if it was unconditional particularly with regard to Solomon and take a look at the Hebrew from the Dead Sea Scrolls and then there is the question of a marriage between either the two separate lines of Mary and Joseph after Jeconiah or if it is the same line of either Mary or Joseph paying careful attention to any inconsistencies in the solution and the prophesies. I also want to take a look at the gaps for the potential that they were the same line or paternal/ maternal and the whole cousin Elizabeth connection. I will look at the significance of going back to Adam in one and only to Abraham in the other line. There are also questions raised with the Kinsman Redeemer potentials and how that law plays into this. I know many minds greater than mine have come up with solutions, whole books have been written on this topic, and but generally when I come upon a headlock like this I like to step back and look at it with as virgin eyes as possible; when I do this; there is always a simple solution hiding in there. God wanted us to even study the begat sections that most people find boring and skip over. This is going to take a while so don't think I ran away...

[SkepticOfBible]

I see your pain.  You raise some good questions. 

101577[/snapback]

 

Thanks for you acknowledgement.

 

I am not really in pain in anything. It's just guys like Daniel want to give standard apologetic answer without even seeing that there is rebuttal to it, and neither will they address the issue. So at the end it just keeps on going on in circle

 

So, I am going to take a look at all those begats in comparison to what other begats there are in the OT, what the early church fathers said with regard to these passages

In out debate I would request you not bring in extra biblical evidance eg Talmud or Early Church Fathers mainly because

 

1)The Talmud and the Opinion of the Early Church Father is not part of the Protestant Canon.

2)Quoting the early fathers is actually a catholic tradition. Not all the church father were actually sure about another and many of them were not aware of a virgin birth. So there is a lot of conflict of opinion amongst these clerics

 

You may see it for your own references

 

compare the prophesies of the Messiah especially those that would connecting the seed of woman and the virgin birth,

Well for starters, the virgin birth wasn't even a requirement for the messiah. I know this is not topic of the debate, but still I'll send some links towards you regarding this

 

The main issue that I raised was Females cannot pass down the throne. That would make sense because the whole bible is promoting a patriachal system of living.

 

 

I want to take a look to see if there were any conditions of obedience or if it was unconditional particularly with regard to Solomon

 

I can help you with that

 

2 Sam 7:12-16

And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.

And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

 

Solomon would be punished when he did wrong, but as 2 Sam 7:12-16 indicates, Solomon would never have God's favor taken from him. Solomon was the son who would carry on the physical line of his father David which would be established forever as shown in the following:

 

1 Chron 28:5-7

And of all my sons, (for the LORD hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel.

And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.

Moreover I will establish his kingdom for ever, if he be constant to do my commandments and my judgments, as at this day.

 

 

 

There are also questions raised with the Kinsman Redeemer potentials and how that law plays into this.  I know many minds greater than mine have come up with solutions, whole books have been written on this topic

And also their have been many great skeptics who have rebutted all the issues raised by the best of the christian mind.

 

I personally think the greatest skeptics of christianity is Judaism. They are already 2000 years ahead of me.

 

 

This is going to take a while so don't think I ran away...

 

Don't worry these issues are not raised today. People have been raising these issue for the last 2000 years:D

 

And I also hope you do look at the following links sincerely or as you said with "Virgin Eyes". They provide a very good rebuttal to the all of the apologetic claims

 

Study of Bad Christian Apologia

Rationalising the Geneology

Debate about Genealogy

The Righto Throne

Genealogy Scams

 

 

Regarding Virgin Birth

Isaiah 7:14 Deception

 

Virgin Birth

 

The second link talks a lot about the actual hebrew word used in the prophecy. I know you like to read the bible in their original language.

[iprayican]

Thanks for the links but that's not what I am talking about when I say using my virgin eyes. I already read the rebutals different groups have put out there, Jewish, Muslem, Catholic, Atheists, Skeptics. There are thousands of them that support each one of us in our own biases. Using my eyes on the oldest copies of scriptures we have without footnotes, looking at actual church records that were written while these men were living or very shortly after they died because that understanding has a better chance of being closer to the truth that was intended than years later, maybe. Those men actually talked with the apostles and perhaps even Jesus and may have been witnesses to the events. Being able to look at the original language and comparing uses and context within it rather than refering to an expert who has a bias. Experts are a dime a dozen, you can find one to agree with just about anything. I put a whole bunch of them at the top of my post, too. No, this time I will do it alone. I like using my own logic and reasoning, I trust that ability, I know five programming languages. No, I'm not a programmer anymore but I was at one time when computers had to be air conditioned until just about the time the first personal computers hit the market. I know I am dating myself now. And the last and most important step of all, praying. Right now, a good nights sleep which I haven't had in some time is what I need most. I'll be back. I'll probably post the inerrancy thread to wrap the star issue. I think this thread covers one of the questions, too; so it will serve double duty.

[scotter]

Ipray if your comments about the provided rebuttals by pritishd that they are biased, one educational benefit for members, Christians and non-Christians included, would be for you to point out where the bias is i.e. your rebuttals to their rebuttals.

 

In addition, the word 'bias' brings out a thought, is it possible the gospel writers, as humans, were biased?

 

2nd question is, do you take Jesus words on salvation literally, "I am the path, truth, life....nobody goes to the Father except through me..." To elaborate on my question, do you believe the exclusive salvation of Christianity?

 

One more: 3rd question is about your great great..........great grandfather Mr. Barton, his Trinity belief was similar to Modalism, what are your comments about his Trinity belief and yours, particularly, is there an inherited influence?

 

2nd and 3rd question are probably off-topic, we can start another thread, or PM me if you would like to respond to it.

 

Thank you.

[iprayican]

Yes, I am just as biased as the best of them. We really can't get away from bias but we have the intellect to know it exists, and accepting that as truth helps us to keep it at bay long enough to hopefully examine it. If you believe what I believe, the writers God used, and by that I mean inspired of God, were able to escape their bias while they penned his words. That doesn't mean they lived unbiased, and we have proof of them being corrected by the other writers when they did.

 

I believe that Jesus is the only way, however, I also see the great mercy of God. Let me explain, I believe the scriptures teach that there will be some that do not have the same chance to know Jesus that let's say an American does. Those people, God says, will know that He exists because God is everywhere in nature. God says when someone seeks to know who it is that is the creator, He will reveal himself to them. I know that for instance, Rahab, didn't know beans about God, but she saw the evil in her city, in her own way of living, and wanted to help the people of God, a God she, even in that evil city, believed existed. She was spared. Jesus while hanging on the cross spared the life of a man, who probably didn't know beans about the way of salvation, but he believed, and he was spared.

 

I don't believe as humans we are in a postion to know a person's heart, only God can make that judgement, we are not in ownership of people to make any judgement regardless of what we might think about their faith. That is an exclusive right of God. We are commanded as believers to live the life that God wants us to, and in that example, others will see him. That is a heavy responsiblity seeing that people will also see our inperfections and in seeing those might also reject the part of God they see. We are commanded to teach others, going to the ends of the earth, and part of that I see as God using us to go to those people who have sought to know who he is. I can't set limits on how God works, look at the translocation of Philip for an example of what ways God might use to get the truth to someone. I don't know that we always hear about those kinds of experiences and when we do, we don't believe them. It's hard to call on how picky God will be when I see instances where He demanded such on the line obedience to the law and then on other occasions was so merciful, but I think a lot of has to do with what we can't see, inside a person's heart.

[iprayican]

About my great-great+ grandfather, I didn't even know about him until my late teens. There had been a great break in the faith between him and where I found myself and my family a few years before that. I can't even say he was an influence in what I believe. It is interesting to me that outside of the knowledge, my mother who didn't know his history either, had stumbled into a church of Christ. It is a non-denominational approach to Christianity that other church families have identified with and we call our church only, the church of Christ. It's not the Latter Day Saints, even though they carry part of that title. Titles really don't mean anything, it's what you do with your belief in God that God looks at. It was through my mother that her parents, her sister, and others in my family came to God. I have since read about him and I admire how he lived his life. However, I had already come to know the basics of what I believe by self-examination of the scriptures, something I continue to do everyday. It is helpful to look into the minds of others who are in the same pursuit, even those who are of the opposite conclusion but in the end it still comes down to a personal decision about what that truth is.

[SkepticOfBible]

Yes, I am just as biased as the best of them. We really can't get away from bias but we have the intellect to know it exists, and accepting that as truth helps us to keep it at bay long enough to hopefully examine it.

 

That's true before I came here I had a bias towards the word "Tolerance". In name of tolerance I actually believed in pluraism. It is only after coming in contact with fundamentalist Christians that I had to re-examine my understanding of the word "tolerance". so that was a eye opener to me.

 

 

There are thousands of them that support each one of us in our own biases.  Using my eyes on the oldest copies of scriptures we have without footnotes, looking at actual church records that were written while these men were living or very shortly after they died because that understanding has a better chance of being closer to the truth that was intended than years later, maybe.   praying. 

102013[/snapback]

 

The most earlier copies don't even go back to 4th century Ad. That's 300 years after the event of Jesus christ.

 

What assurances do you have they are not doctored?

 

As I mentioned in my other post the NIV study bible says that the last verses of Mark looks like they were added on because "the earliest" copies don't have them

 

And when you mean scripture which version are following the catholic or protestant.

 

Because it is a known fact that many of these early church father consider the LXX as inspired. So maybe their interpretation is influenced by LXX too.

 

refering to an expert who has a bias.  Experts are a dime a dozen, you can find one to agree with just about anything.

I am not saying to agree to everything to what these experts say. But some experts are just bad and some are not. Atleast we should try and understand what the good one experts are saying. The final decision is always yours

 

Right now, a good nights sleep which I haven't had in some time is what I need most.  I'll be back.  I'll probably post the inerrancy thread to wrap the star issue.  I think this thread covers one of the questions, too; so it will serve double duty.

 

Don't burn yourself out over these discussions. I look forward to your reply

[spumoni]

The problem with this debate is that you are approaching a Jewish understanding and usage of genealogy with a western, rationalistic approach.

 

The genealogies mean something in the names that were used. They are not trying to portray any kind of literal passing of generations in a dogmatic progressive manner. The purposes were to show Jesus' lineage to kings and the first man Adam. Nothing else is being done and to try to compare the two is missing the whole point.

[SkepticOfBible]

The problem with this debate is that you are approaching a Jewish understanding and usage of genealogy with a western, rationalistic approach.

 

So you mean to say that even the current jews are wrong in their approach.

 

Did you check out the jewish website which I posted.

 

So what is the correct approach to see the genealogies?

 

The genealogies mean something in the names that were used. They are not trying to portray any kind of literal passing of generations in a dogmatic progressive manner.

 

In other words, christians are free to make whatever rules they want in order to show that Jesus was the Messiah.

 

Atleast try to rebut the point that I raised.

 

The purposes were to show Jesus' lineage to kings and the first man Adam. Nothing else is being done and to try to compare the two is missing the whole point.

 

What is the point? The genealogies contradict each other and they also show he is not the Jewish Messiah.

[thunderbolt]

What is the point? The genealogies contradict each other and they also show he is not the Jewish Messiah.

Amen! Simple as that. And no Christian to date could cross this hurdle of genealogies, or "harmonizing" the birth year of Jesus.