• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Genealogies of Jesus

M

monti

Member
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”.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
monti said:
One has to ask, do the Christian believers actually read the bible themselves or just take it on the word of their 'peers'?
Click to expand...
One has to ask, did you ever take the time to research how Christians address the issue or did you just decide to ridicule them thoughtlessly?
 
M

monti

Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
One has to ask, did you ever take the time to research how Christians address the issue
Click to expand...

I believe posting the question on this forum is research?



Jayhawker Soule said:
or did you just decide to ridicule them thoughtlessly?
Click to expand...

It is a bonafide question. Why does the New Testament have two obviously different genealogies for Jesus?

One also has to ask, why you, Jayhawker Soule do not simply attempt to answer the question instead of attacking the questioner?

One also has to ask why these two evangelists even bothered to include these obvious contradictory genealogy lists to begin with, whereas Mark and John do not?
 
CynthiaCypher

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
monti said:
I believe posting the question on this forum is research?





It is a bonafide question. Why does the New Testament have two obviously different genealogies for Jesus?

One also has to ask, why you, Jayhawker Soule do not simply attempt to answer the question instead of attacking the questioner?

One also has to ask why these two evangelists even bothered to include these obvious contradictory genealogy lists to begin with, whereas Mark and John do not?
Click to expand...

One. He is not a Christian, so he doesn't have to answer the question

Two. You have already shown hostility towards the religion by dismissing how some Christian's explain why there are two genealogies. How do you know that there is no evidence? Have you studied the issue at hand? Show me your sources?
 
M

monti

Member
CynthiaCypher said:
One. He is not a Christian, so he doesn't have to answer the question
Click to expand...

No, he doesn't have to post any sort of reply at all ,does he? but he took the time to throw his penny's worth in all the same. But not with a reasonable response, just an attack on the questioner, as you seem to have done. If you do not know the answer then either simply say so or simply do not respond to the the topic.

CynthiaCypher said:
Two. You have already shown hostility towards the religion by dismissing how some Christian's explain why there are two genealogies. How do you know that there is no evidence? Have you studied the issue at hand? Show me your sources?
Click to expand...

So you cannot explain these two contradictory genealogical lists either then, but prefer the easier rout of questioning the questioner.
 
CynthiaCypher

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
monti said:
No, he doesn't have to post any sort of reply at all ,does he? but he took the time to throw his penny's worth in all the same. But not with a reasonable response, just an attack on the questioner, as you seem to have done. If you do not know the answer then either simply say so or simply do not respond to the the topic.



So you cannot explain these two contradictory genealogical lists either then, but prefer the easier rout of questioning the questioner.
Click to expand...

You made the claim that Christian's have no evidence, you have to back up that claim. Show me your sources in which Christians explain the genealogies and do not provide evidence that it might be so.
 
Sleeppy

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
One is Joseph's, the other Mary's. Both are Jesus'. -- There are some other ideas Christians have as well.
 
roger1440

roger1440

I do stuff
monti said:
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”.
Click to expand...
If you look close, you will find Mathew’s account includes four women with less than an admiral past. Each of the accounts (Mathew and Luke) has a different agenda. There is much on this topic on the internet.

Do the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke contradict one another? | Christian Research Institute

Meet 5 Unique Women in Jesus' Family Tree - Holiness Today

gender - Why does Matthew include these women in Jesus' genealogy? - Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange
 
M

monti

Member
CynthiaCypher said:
You made the claim that Christian's have no evidence, you have to back up that claim.
Click to expand...

I do not have to do any such thing. Christian apologists offer no evidence that one of those genealogies is that of Jesus' mother Mary.
Do you have any evidence that one of those lists is in fact a genealogical record of Mary's bloodline? I didn't think so. So why not simply answer the question or stay away from the thread?
 
M

monti

Member
Sleeppy said:
One is Joseph's, the other Mary's.
Click to expand...
not according to (Luke 3:23-38.KJV) (Matthew 1:2-17 K J V). They both state that these are indeed the blood line of Joseph father of Jesus. Mary is not mentioned at all. So how do you know one is Joseph's and one is Mary's?



Sleeppy said:
Both are Jesus'. -- There are some other ideas Christians have as well.
Click to expand...

I do not doubt for a second that christians would have "other ideas" once one explanation after another falls flat on it's face. But none can answer the question of why there would be two different,contradictory genealogies for the Christ Jesus.
If these lists are that of Joseph father of Jesus, then those lists should be in unerring agreement, which they are not.
And, if one of those list is indeed that of Mary, then I am sure that these 'god inspired' gospels would make it plainly obvious of who's bloodline it is that they are referring to, which they do not.
 
M

monti

Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
Your OP was an ignorant attempt to ridicule and dismiss Christians, nothing more. The attempt failed … and deserved to fail.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Why do you see querying these genealogical lists an as an attempt at ridicule? If those list have any validity at all, then I am sure the christian (or anyone else come to that) would be able to explain why these lists are(or at least appear to be) so blatantly contradictory?

And you still haven'y answered the question. So could I suggest you stay of the thread.
 
M

monti

Member
roger1440 said:
If you look close, you will find Mathew’s account includes four women with less than an admiral past.
Click to expand...


Yes I did look closely at both those lists:
Tamar - seduce her father-in-law (Genesis 38:12-19).
Rahab - was a harlot (Joshua 2:1).
Ruth - who secretly came to where Boaz was sleeping and spent the night with him. (Ruth 3:1-14).
Bathsheba. King David slept with Bathsheba the wife of Uriah. She became pregnant and David set Uriah up to be killed. (2 Samuel 11)
 
M

monti

Member
steeltoes said:
Matthew claims fourteen generations but lists 13.
Click to expand...
Yes steeltoes, there are a few anomalies to those lists.

Indeed and Luke is very insistent on what he is conveying to his readers, is he not?
“Now Jesus himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph”. Luke 3:23.KJV.
Click to expand...

The son of Joseph? Not the son of God? Luke is not only explicit in what he says; he is adamant about what he says and is sure of his sources when he writes:

“For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus.”. Luke 1:1-3KJV.
Click to expand...

Simply put, Luke is telling us above that "they" (his sources) knew and perfectly understood what they were talking about and it was the truth that they were conveying to us (and Luke) because his sources had witnessed it all.And that it was ‘good enough for him’ so it should be good enough for us.

Another apologist fanatic Eusebius has this to say when confronted with this genealogical dilemma;

"each believer has been only too eager to dilate at length on these passages”. Eusebius, The History of the Church.
Click to expand...

“To dilate”? One can only imagine translates as ‘who do you think you are looking at these genealogies with your eyes wide open’. Or, ‘don’t allow your eyes to become too dilated, you may see the contradictions ’.

He is asking the more observant to turn a blind eye , perhaps.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top