Genealogies of Jesus

[monti]

There is the obvious answer. The Gospels were written by people who didn't know much about Jesus and had an agenda other than telling the truth. They didn't expect anyone to compare their stories.

The question is whether anybody has a better answer. I've not seen one, there certainly isn't one in this thread.

Tom

I agree. There simply isn't one. Indeed one of those lists would cut the line of Jesus to David if it was that of Mary's.
These genealogical lists are unreliable and pointless. I can only come to the conclusion that they were added to make it appear that Jesus was (1) divine (2) the rightful king of the Jews. Both Matthew and Luke are adamant that they are the bloodlines of of Joseph. And as I pointed out in another post above , only one (if any) of these lists can be right.
Is it any wonder the other two evangelists had the good sense not to even mention Jesus' pedigree.

 

[monti]

asking a Jew about "these two God inspired gospels" is no less ignorant.

Was Jesus a Jew or and Egyptian raised in Memphis Heliopolis (city of the sun)?

 

[Avi1001]

Was Jesus a Jew or and Egyptian raised in Memphis Heliopolis (city of the sun)?

Hi Monti, I have been reading your posts and think I see a little bit of an agenda. How do you feel about Jews ?

The name Monti is like Monty Pyton, are you going after the comedy crowd ?

 

[monti]

I see a little bit of an agenda. How do you feel about Jews ?

So you want my opinion of Jews (regardless of my question)? Ok.That is quite a broad question for me. I don’t feel anything about Jews; Jews are just other people like me and like another human being on the planet, (although some Jews (it is said) believe they are somehow “chosen” above others), indeed God himself states this does he not?

For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. Deuteronomy 7:6. NIV.
Of all the people on earth, the LORD your God has chosen you to be his own special treasure. Deuteronomy 7:6.NLT
God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. Deuteronomy 7:6.KJV.

But as we have seen on another post of mine, some will tell us that he –God - didn’t mean just the Jews but everyone.

That said, when we consider that it is written that the Jewish hierarchy, it is said, wanted Jesus and Lazarus dead, we have to wonder what is was that these high priest/s were worried about.
Jesus, it is obvious, posed a real threat to the high priest/s of the time. But was it their standard of living and status that they were concerned of losing or was it genuine fear that both Jesus and Lazarus could start another Jewish war? It was these Jewish priests after all, who insisted on his death. I have my own opinions as to why but they are not the subject of this topic..

We also have to wonder, why it was they wanted to kill Lazarus. He is mentioned nowhere in the bible that he was a even disciple of Jesus, but they still wanted him out of the way, Why?

The New Testament to me is all a very strange story on the surface, that is until one begins to scratch the surface and then a completely different picture appears.


I have no “agenda” only that it is good to read and take in the answers to my questions (when ever they are forth-coming). I am the first to admit that I am ignorant to many things concerning religion. I am not here to sway anyone’s beliefs (it is pointless in my opinion to argue with faith, be it blind faith or not. I just find it very interesting that when one comes to the subject of faith and religion that so many different opinions and answers come from one question;( a bit like the New Testament, they (the gospellers) don't agree with one another too often either). One question throws up many more questions and never seems to answer the original question, as with my original question that you have avoided yourself.

Now if have explained myself and my position to you adequately enough (hopefully) maybe you won’t mind spending sometime answering the question I asked in my op?

here>
The New Testament has two different genealogies for Jesus, Why is this?

 

[monti]

The name Monti is like Monty Pyton, are you going after the comedy crowd ?

No, I believe what are ask are serious questions. If you find them comical, I am pleased for you.

 

[columbus]

Hi Monti, I have been reading your posts and think I see a little bit of an agenda. How do you feel about the Jews?

I'm curious. What agenda do you see?
Seems to me that Monti asked a simple question and the responses have been illuminating.

I don't see anything to do with Judaism, except that the culture of Jesus and His followers was Jewish. The only agenda I see is discussion of the likelihood that the Gospel writers were accurate. That mostly matters to Christian people who claim the Bible is "the Gospel Truth", not Jewish people.
Tom

 

[monti]

I'm curious. What agenda do you see?
Seems to me that Monti asked a simple question and the responses have been illuminating.

I don't see anything to do with Judaism, except that the culture of Jesus and His followers was Jewish. The only agenda I see is discussion of the likelihood that the Gospel writers were accurate. That mostly matters to Christian people who claim the Bible is "the Gospel Truth", not Jewish people.
Tom

And up until this point I have read nothing that justifies these genealogies even appearing in the gospels. It seems that the apologists want to swerve the fact that both Luke and matthew insist they are both the bloodlines of Joseph the father of Jesus.

Thanks for your post columbus, you are right on the mark.

 

[Sleeppy]

And up until this point I have read nothing that justifies these genealogies even appearing in the gospels. It seems that the apologists want to swerve the fact that both Luke and matthew insist they are both the bloodlines of Joseph the father of Jesus.

Thanks for your post columbus, you are right on the mark.

You do well to thank those agreeable to you.

Luke and Matthew also insist that Mary conceived as a virgin, of the Holy Spirit.

 

[columbus]

Luke and Matthew also insist that Mary conceived as a virgin, of the Holy Spirit.

The authors of the "New Testament" make many claims. The question is whether they were making truthful claims or not.

I don't know what Jesus' paternal grandfather was named. But I'm not going to assume that someone who doesn't know either, but will write a story about Him anyway, knows anything about Jesus' theological beliefs.

Tom

 

[Pegg]

... Both Matthew and Luke are adamant that they are the bloodlines of of Joseph. And as I pointed out in another post above , only one (if any) of these lists can be right.
Is it any wonder the other two evangelists had the good sense not to even mention Jesus' pedigree.

are you sure you only have one set of grandparents???

Matthew 1:16 Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary

Luke 3:23 When Jesus began his work, he was about 30 years old, being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of He′li,

Jesus certainly had 2 grandfathers.... jacob and Heli. Jacob was Josephs father and Heli was Mary's father.

This is two different family lines being traced. Now how many grandfathers do you have?

 

[monti]

You do well to thank those agreeable to you.

Yes I know. It is not normal for me to thank those who disagree with me.

'thank you for disagreeing with me' doesn't quite make sense to me, how about you?

Luke and Matthew also insist that Mary conceived as a virgin, of the Holy Spirit.

Indeed, but is it true? It is also debatable whether or not she were even married at the time of conception,isn't it?
besides, what do they mean by "virgin"? To my knowledge it simply means young woman or maiden. I also believe it is a reference to Virgo the Maiden i.e. Mary was born of, in or under the star sign of Virgo the Maiden and may have absolutely nothing to do with her state of chastity. But none of this is the topic of this thread, is it..

 

[CG Didymus]

Luke’s list begins;

“Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph”.

Whereas Mathew’s list finishes;

“And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ”.

In a Christian site they try and explain it. What's strange is the amount of people from David to Joseph in Luke's. There's 41 guys listed and in Matthew's only 26?

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Sleeppy]

Yes I know. It is not normal for me to thank those who disagree with me.

'thank you for disagreeing with me' doesn't quite make sense to me, how about you?


Indeed, but is it true? It is also debatable whether or not she were even married at the time of conception,isn't it?
besides, what do they mean by "virgin"? To my knowledge it simply means young woman or maiden. I also believe it is a reference to Virgo the Maiden i.e. Mary was born of, in or under the star sign of Virgo the Maiden and may have absolutely nothing to do with her state of chastity. But none of this is the topic of this thread, is it..

Is it debatable? Why do you say the genealogies are both Joseph's?

Mary was a virgin. If you read the text, she will be known to have said, "I have not known a man."

 

[DeepShadow]

I agree. There simply isn't one. Indeed one of those lists would cut the line of Jesus to David if it was that of Mary's.

You got your answer on page 3:

The fact is, he had to distinguish between two different people named Joseph - Matthew is not referring to Mary’s husband in verse 16 at all, but rather her father!

Depending on context, it has been shown that 0rbg can mean ‘man, husband or father.’ The usage in verse 16 would demand that we translate 0rbg as ‘father’, rather than 'husband', since the context is a genealogy. Verses 18 & 19, however, would demand that we associate that Joseph with her ‘husband’, since the context is that of marriage. Matthew, then, is recording the genealogy of Mary, whereas Luke is recording that of Joseph. Which would be exactly opposite of the currently accepted academic line (which was somewhat detailed in my previous post) - that Luke recorded Mary’s lineage while Matthew recorded that of Joseph. That would give us 14 generation in the third series of Matthew. It would also explain why Luke has 20 generations in the 2nd series and 22 generations in the 3rd series - i.e., Joseph's lineage did not break out cleanly in 14-generation groupings, except for the first series. Since Matthew is giving the line of Mary, only her lineage would be required to break out evenly in 14-generation groupings. That would also explain why the names are completely different in both the 2nd and 3rd series between the accounts in Matthew and in Luke. It also demonstrates that both Mary and Joseph were descendents of King David - each through a separate line!

This answer explains both the 13-generation error and the discrepancy between the two genealogies. Now let's hear your rebuttal of it.

 

[DeepShadow]

So I will take it that you do not have an answer or a reply or a theory or an explanation. Ok, leave the thread.

Why? Saying a question or an OP is unfair, biased or misleading is a perfectly good contribution to a discussion. If there's a need for clarification, the OP author might be able to clarify. If the question's a trap--intentional or not--a warning to others would be very helpful. Just because you have some arbitrary rule about what types of contributions you want, you have no authority to enforce them on the rest of us.

 

[monti]

Is it debatable? Why do you say the genealogies are both Joseph's?

I don't, but these two gospels do.Don't they.

 

[Bunyip]

I think it's interesting to note that the incidence of virgin birth declines markedly when pregnancy for an unwed girl in not punishable by being stoned to death.

A girl living with a man for a time who gets pregnant would be well advised to attribute said pregnancy to god if it would spare her being stoned to death.

 

[oldbadger]

The New Testament has two different genealogies for Jesus, Why is this?
The Christian apologist will no doubt insist that one of the bloodlines is that of Jesus’ mother Mary. There is no evidence for this to be the case.
The New Testament makes it quite clear that both Luke’s (Luke 3:23-38.KJV) and Mathew’s (Matthew 1:2-17 K J V) genealogical list are that of Jesus’ blood line.
One has to ask, do the Christian believers actually read the bible themselves or just take it on the word of their 'peers'?

Luke’s list begins;

“Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph”.

Whereas Mathew’s list finishes;

“And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ”.

You must be worried about this. Does it keep you up at night?
Let me help.
I'll offer some possible reasons. You pick one. If your sleepless nights retreat as a result, do consider giving an old Deist a frubal, or something. Fair?

1. Somebody could have made an editing, copying or translation mistake, down through the millenia. Have you ever miscopied anything?
2. An author could have 'done' a scribo. Do you know what a 'scribo' is? A scribo is a CE 1st century version of a 'typo'. Have you ever done a 'typo'?
3. As if Christians needed any more proof or evidence for their faith, some over zealous evangelist felt an irresistible desire to prove Jesus's lineage so as to 'click' with OT prophesy, when Christians know that it does anyway.
4. A 1st century Christian comedian felt a huge desire to take the 'wee' out of folks like yourself, and plunged Joseph's lineage into good old G-Matthew as a red herring, knowing that Christians everywhere would know that Jesus's father is in fact God........ he just wanted to get folks like you to show that you had not figured that out. Great guy..... I hope he had many successful tours.
5. Loads of folks around here are absolutely bonkers about their ancestry, and spend hours b-ggering about, trying to prove that they were descended from Oliver Cromwell, or Margaret Thatcher, or somebody. Maybe it was all the rage amongst Galilean peasants and Fisherfolks back then? (you know, sort of : Hey, Matthias! My old lady just figured out that EzekiabarYosef was my great great great great grand-dad..... so could I have a bit more bloody respect out of you in future, you dog...?!)

Now I feel sure that any one of those suggestions will take all the worry out of your life. If you live anywhere near Canterbury, England, Ol-B would be happy to take you for personal counselling, fitness training, massage (not the naughty kind) ..... but don't tell the bosses I wrote this, cos its advertising, see?
5.

 

[monti]

. Now let's hear your rebuttal of it.

I am simply telling you that both these genealogical list cannot both be right as they have come down to the modern reader.

The point of my op was to hear the responses of others. I made my opinion clear almost immediately when I said ‘as they have come down to us they are pointless’.
Any other opinion outside these, sometimes ridiculous, “gospel truths” shouldn’t count for anything. After all, they are words inspired by God himself, are they not? so there shouldn't be any mistakes or errors, should there? Or do the modern christian accept that their God does often make terribly unclear, oblique nonsensical statements.

That said, this is the best I can come up with from my own understanding so far.

It is most likely that in these modern times and the education of the masses, the church have had to reason that Joseph couldn't possibly have two genealogical lineages (because of the contradictions above) and of course because only then would Mary’s son qualify for the role as Messiah (of which there were many).

When we read what the gospellers themselves have to say, Mary's cousin, Elisabeth and her husband Zachariah were Levites, which makes Mary a Levite. How do we know this? Well, the gospels tell us that it is so;

“There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course [bloodline] of Abia : and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth”. Luke 1:5-25

Aaron was a full blood Levite and first high priest of the Israelites. So they were both of the tribe of Levi and not of Judah making Mary at the very least a half-bred Levite, this is assuming that her mother was the sister of either Zachariah's mother or father or Elisabeth's mother or father. If the relative of Zachariah and Elisabeth was Joachim then that would make Mary a full-blood Levite since priests only married women within the tribe of Levi,(correct me if I am wrong). The example here was Zachariah, who married Elisabeth a Levite woman. Eli, the supposed father of Mary in the gospel of Luke died childless. So Eli could not possibly be Mary's father. This eliminates Mary from being of the lineage of Eli, thus she wasn't of royal lineage.
What is more, we have the two evangelists, Mathew and Luke, both showing us that Joseph is the direct descendant of King David. And this is not to mention that they don’t even agree as to whom Joseph’s father of was:

“And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary”. Matthew 1:17.KJV

Luke 3:23; “Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, the son of Heli”.KJV

Mathew traces the Jesus as far back as Abraham but in the case of Luke, we are taken back to Adam who was made from dirt by God making him first human on this earth, where there is no virgin for an angel of God to “come unto”. How do they now explain the bloodline of Jesus and how do they explain two bloodlines that are now rendered useless, pointless and invalid? It is interesting to read what St Paul has to say ;

“concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the “seed” of David according to the flesh”. Romans 1:3;

The real answer to these blinding genealogical contradictions in my opinion of course is simply that these New Testament gospellers, Mathew and Luke in particular, were attempting to fulfil the Old Testament prophecies of yet another Messiah to come, a Messiah who would deliver them (the Jews) from the Roman yoke as “it is written” by the Old Testament prophets. There are many such prophecies, including gambling for Jesus’ robes, thirty pieces of silver, betrayal, voices crying in the wilderness, bones were not to be broken, etc. Mathew quotes the Old Testament;

“All right then, the Lord himself will choose the sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child. She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel”. Isaiah 7:14.

See also;
He was the "seed of a woman" Genesis 3:15
He was a descendent of Abraham -- prophecy: Genesis 12:3
He was from the tribe of Judah – prophecy: Genesis 49:10
He was the heir to the throne of David – prophecy: Isaiah 9:7
His birth place in Bethlehem – prophecy: Micah 5:2

That is my opinion on what I have read in this thread and my understanding of the Gospels of Mathew and Luke, thus far.

 

[monti]

Mary was a virgin. If you read the text, she will be known to have said, "I have not known a man."

Well if you would like to start a thread of your own on this subject I will be more than pleased to debate this 'miraculous event' with you.