• 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!

The main problems with the gospel genealogies

SDavis

Member
The following includes some excerpts from a short book I wrote: (that can be read online for free)
There are a few prophecies the genealogies fulfil (Messiah would be a descendent of Abraham, King David, and governor Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel) and besides that the genealogies are mostly different and contradictory. I mean they don't even agree which son of David Joseph was descended from or who was the father of Shealtiel or the son of Zerubbabel or the father of Joseph.

View attachment 78958
The prophecies:

More:

To restate what I've said, the two genealogies "prove" that Jesus was the prophesized Messiah because it shows that he fulfilled the prophecies regarding being a descendant of Abraham, King David and Zerubbabel/Shealtiel.

But in John they're also aware of the prophecies but the crowd doesn't think that Jesus fulfilled them....

John 7:41-42 says:

This creationist article brings up another issue:
Isn't one genealogy from the lineage of Joseph and the other genealogy from the lineage of Mary.

In Luke through Mary the lineage goes back to David through his son Nathan and back to Adam.

In Matthew the lineage is through Joseph.

Though Joseph was not the biological Father of Jesus he was still legally recognized as the father of Jesus and Mary being the biological mother. Giving Jesus blood rights through Mary as well as legal rights through Joseph to the throne of David.

The simplest reason may actually be truth
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Isn't one genealogy from the lineage of Joseph and the other genealogy from the lineage of Mary.

In Luke through Mary the lineage goes back to David through his son Nathan and back to Adam.

In Matthew the lineage is through Joseph.
This is what I found in my research: (quoted in this thread)
Centuries later, John of Damascus, who lived from 675 - 749 AD, was unhappy with that explanation and argued that the genealogy in Luke was actually showing that Mary was descended from David. Though the Bible doesn't suggest that Mary is a descendent of David, Luke says that her relative, Elizabeth, is a descendent of Moses' brother, Aaron (who isn't an ancestor of David). Despite this, the idea that Mary was a descendent of David is the most popular explanation today amongst Christians.
Also:
In Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:27, Joseph is said to be a descendent of King David
If Luke was talking about Mary's genealogy it should be more obvious and the theory should have originated much earlier.... (rather than in the seventh century)

Also the genealogies in Matthew and Luke both include governor Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel - assuming they're talking about the same people I thought that in both cases Shealtiel would have the same father since both are connecting him to King David. I thought the genealogy involving Solomon would be preferred while Luke talks about David's son being Nathan.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
This is what I found in my research: (quoted in this thread)

Also:

If Luke was talking about Mary's genealogy it should be more obvious and the theory should have originated much earlier.... (rather than in the seventh century)

Also the genealogies in Matthew and Luke both include governor Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel - assuming they're talking about the same people I thought that in both cases Shealtiel would have the same father since both are connecting him to King David. I thought the genealogy involving Solomon would be preferred while Luke talks about David's son being Nathan.
Why does it matter ?
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Why does it matter ?

. . . You just had to ask. I aim to make you like the girl who after reading a 300 page book about Platypus said, "Daddy, I now know far more about Platypus than I should ever have liked to know.":oops:

Two lines come down through king David. The one through Solomon is the kingship-line (given in Mathew). But there's also the line through David's other son Nathan. ----- Mary's line is traced through Nathan. Luke traces Mary through her father Heli. On the other hand, Joseph's line, the line of Solomon (the line through which a Davidic king must come) is cut off by the Coniah-curse. God vows that no one born of the "seed" (biology) of Jechoniah, will sit on the throne. This cuts off the kingship-line as it's passes on through biological conception and birth such that if Joseph (Jesus' adoptive father), who's in the line of Solomon (such that his "seed" can't sit on the throne of David) actually fathers Jesus biologically, Jesus can't sit on the throne of David.

But as the terebinth and the oak leave stumps when they are cut down, so the holy seed will be the stump in the land.​
Isaiah 6:13.​

Certain trees can reproduce without sex. Isaiah's notation of coppicing is copacetic to Jesus' situation since just thirteen verses after Isaiah notes non-sexual reproduction as the means through which the "holy seed" will enter the land, the prophet clarifies his statement further by saying, " . . . the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14)."

A non-sexual basal-shoot will spring up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. . . In that day this Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the Gentiles will rally to him, and the place where he rests-in-peace † will be considered glorious.​
Isaiah 11:10.​

Messiah (the "Branch"--Hebrew "nazar-ene") will be born through biological-coppicing --- virgin birth. Isaiah chapter 53, speaking of Messiah, claims the "shoot" (nazarene) from the stump of Jesse will rise up "like a root out of dry ground" (53:2). Countless scriptures compare "rain" to the male seed and "earth" to the mother's womb. The Branch that rises copacetically from the stump of Jesses, i.e., the Davidic line, rises through non-sexual means (so Jesus' birth tricks the Coniah-curse). He's conceived through coppicing in one analogy; and from a closed womb ("dry ground") in another.

Jesus is the perfect fulfillment of Isaiah's prophesy since if he's to sit on the throne of David he must be a son of Solomon. But if he's a son of Solomon (biologically) he can't sit on the throne of David due to the Coniah-curse. As fate would have it, the Davidic kingship can be inherited through adoption so that a son of David through Solomon, i.e., Joseph, Jesus' father, can actually transmit the right of Davidic kingship (through inheritance) if he's father of his first son through inheritance rather than biology since without conceiving him biologically he can transfer the right of kingship without the Coniah curse kicking in.

Divine coincidence comes onto the scene since the kingly-line can be fulfilled through adoption as well as biology. Joseph is the biological-line of Solomon and therefore part of the kingly-line through birth. So if he adopts a son (rather than seeding that son through phallic-sex), that son is like a Branch grafted into the kingly tree/line and is thus a legitimate heir of the kingly line. -----This makes it perfectly copacetic to point out that through biological-coppicing (a virgin conception) Jesus is inoculated against the Coniah-curse through inosculation?

But why does Mary's line go all the way back to Adam, while Joseph's line stops at Abraham?

The first human was pregnant with a son from the moment of the creation of the first human (ha-adam). That son's birth was aborted in the abomination that cut open his body (Genesis 2:21) not to receive the Messianic son into the world, but to clone some of ha-adam's flesh to create/clone Eve, and with Eve, the demon-seed transference-mechanism otherwise known as "phallic-sex." Every child, beginning with Cain, conceived through "phallic-sex," will senescence and die since biological immortality ceased when sex increased the race:

Death did not appear simultaneously with life. This is one of the most important and profound statements in all of biology. At the very least it deserves repetitions: Death is not inextricably intertwined with the definition of life. . . Death of the organism through senescence ---programmed death----- makes its appearance in evolution at about the same time that sexual reproduction appears.​
Professor of Biology, William R. Clark, Sex and the Origins of Death, p. 54, 63.​
Mary's line goes back to the first human since her son is actually the son that was in the first human when the first ---non-gendered ---human was created already pregnant. The Father of that son was God since God conceived the son in ha-adam (the first human) and created that seed in the first ---non-gendered --- human, already abel (the seed is) to develop and open the womb with his own hand (rather than the phallic-serpent opening it for him). Since the son of God, Abel to be born without a father (Cain's father is noted in the text, Abel's is absent from the text), is aborted, for the time being, all sons thereafter come about through phallic sex. ----That is, until Abraham. ----Before Abraham births his firstborn son, he takes a sharp knife and nicks at his phallus, causing it to bleed, and leaving a necrotic scar that's the crux of the symbolism through which God's original son will be conceived and thereafter born (as symbolized by ritual-emasculation prior to Isaac's birth). He's born late no doubt, stillborn to be sure, but still, born, nevertheless, thank God.

Mary's line goes back to Adam because her son is conceived in Adam from the get-go. Joseph's line stops at Abraham since Abraham bleeding his phallus (brit milah, ritual-emasculation) is the key to how Joseph's son can thwart the Coniah-curse (which merely symbolizes the curse of Adam's original sin: phallic sex with Eve) by being conceived in Adam (the beginning of Mary's line) and re-conceived patrilineally, the moment Abraham wacks at his phallus as the crux of the ritual that nails down the truth of the Tanakh's salvation-mechanism. Joseph father's Jesus through adoption since Jesus' true Father, the one who conceived him in the womb of the first human, doesn't, in truth, play second fiddle to no damned serpent be he either angelic or else a biological organ playing a death-dirge as though it were a new song sung by a Gospel choir.

Death, the literal dis-integration of the husk of the body, was the grim price exacted by meiotic sexuality. Complex development in protoctists and their animal and plant descendants led to the evolution of death as a kind of sexually transmitted disease.​
Professor of Biology, Lynn Margulis, Symbiotic Planet, p. 90.​



John
 
Last edited:

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Two lines come down through king David. The one through Solomon is the kingship-line (given in Mathew). But there's also the line through David's other son Nathan. ----- Mary's line is traced through Nathan. Luke traces Mary through her father Heli.
Luke 3:23 says "He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli". Where does it say in the Bible that Mary's father was Heli? If it does it seems that Mary AND Joseph's father is Heli.
On the other hand, Joseph's line, the line of Solomon (the line through which a Davidic king must come) is cut off by the Coniah-curse. God vows that no one born of the "seed" (biology) of Jechoniah, will sit on the throne.
In Matthew Shealtiel's father is Jeconiah - in Luke there is also Shealtiel who is a descendent of David so he'd also have the father of Jeconiah.
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Luke 3:23 says "He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli". Where does it say in the Bible that Mary's father was Heli? If it does it seems that Mary AND Joseph's father is Heli.

Luke 3:23 can be interpreted: "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph (and the son of Heli through his mother) who (Joseph) was the son of Matthat . . .." The Jews reckoned lineage through the male line so that Jesus' two fathers would be Joseph and Heli. In some sense the mother is inconsequential to Jewish reckoning.

As has been noted many times, it's difficult to properly exegete and translate from language to language since the letters of one language function according to the rules of grammar associated with that language. When you try to translate, it can often look as broken as when a Spanish speaker uses his newfound English words but keeps falling back into his Spanish grammar. When they're mixed, it can be difficult to say for sure what Javier has just said. Case in point, the KJV " And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age" is peculiar grammar such as Jesús (Haisoose) might say when mixing his Spanish with English.

Furthermore, as is the case with the biblical Hebrew text, so to with the Greek, the original written texts often came without word breaks or punctuation such that the interpretations and translations we get today are nothing like set in stone.



John
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Luke 3:23 can be interpreted: "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph (and the son of Heli through his mother) who (Joseph) was the son of Matthat . . ..
In the original Greek there doesn't seem to be any mention of Mary or mother or daughter, etc....
Also in Luke 1:27 there is:
to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
In the original Greek there doesn't seem to be any mention of Mary or mother or daughter, etc....
Also in Luke 1:27 there is:

. . . Right. Women aren't included in Jewish biblical lineages. So we have to know that and interpret/translate accordingly. "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph (and the son of Heli through his mother) who (Joseph) was the son of Matthat . . .."

"Isagogics" are required to interpret the biblical languages properly. And truth-be-known, we are today armed with weapons of interpretation that none of the translators of the Bible possessed. Today, a five-year old armed with the Bible software I have, access to everything on the Web, a super-fast Mac, and the willingness to burn some midnight oil (if his parents allow it) can put Rashi and Luther to shame. And that's not an exaggeration.

There's a new Bible (and a new world) on the near horizon and it won't look too much like what we've inherited. The bible interpretations we have are a crusty ole relic forge at a time when the god of this world had a firmer grip on the control and dissemination of knowledge.




John
 
Last edited:

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
. . . Right. Women aren't included in Jewish biblical lineages.
I don't think that is the case - from Matthew 1:
whose mother was Tamar
whose mother was Rahab
whose mother was Ruth
whose mother had been Uriah’s wife
Mary was the mother of Jesus
So we have to know that and interpret/translate accordingly. "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph (and the son of Heli through his mother) who (Joseph) was the son of Matthat . . .."
Where is the proof that Heli was the father of Mary? It seems the reasoning is that it is just an attempt to explain the apparent contradictions in the genealogies.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Isn't one genealogy from the lineage of Joseph and the other genealogy from the lineage of Mary.

In Luke through Mary the lineage goes back to David through his son Nathan and back to Adam.

In Matthew the lineage is through Joseph.

Though Joseph was not the biological Father of Jesus he was still legally recognized as the father of Jesus and Mary being the biological mother. Giving Jesus blood rights through Mary as well as legal rights through Joseph to the throne of David.

The simplest reason may actually be truth
The truth is the genealogy as it applies to bible mythology is clearly made up as the characters are. and full of inconsistencies and gaps.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
I don't think that is the case - from Matthew 1:

In certain cases where the mother is deemed important, she's given. But the fact that she's not given throughout the genealogy shows that mentioning her isn't required. When it happens there's an ancillary reason.

Where is the proof that Heli was the father of Mary? It seems the reasoning is that it is just an attempt to explain the apparent contradictions in the genealogies.

The fact that Heli's genealogy goes all the way back to Adam proves that it's the mother's genealogy since Jesus is known as the "second adam" and the "son of Adam." He's the true firstborn of creation (Col. 1:15). That's not a misprint in Colosians 1:15. Jesus is literally the first human conceived in the womb of another human since he was conceived in the body of Adam when that body was formed. Adam was originally non-gendered flesh. He was the mother of Jesus, while God was the Father who made Jesus in the womb of Adam. In one sense Adam was the father and mother of Jesus.

Then came Genesis 2:21. . . But that's a whole other story and another thread.

We know Heli begins Mary's genealogy since it goes back to a time when a supposed male, ha-adam, was actually pregnant in the same manner Mary was pregnant (as a virgin). The pregnancy was aborted (Genesis 2:21) the first time. Thank God the second time it was not.

We know Heli begins Mary's genealogy since Joseph's genealogy begins with Abraham: the father who by cutting off his phallus (ritually at least, brit milah) prior to the birth of his son, becomes the type, of Joseph, who's phallus is cut out of Jesus' conception and birth literally rather than ritually.

Juxtaposing Adam and Mary (two humans pregnant without a phallus involved) and Abraham and Joseph (two humans who's phallus is cut out of the pregnancy of their firstborn, Abraham's symbolically, Joseph's literally) is too perfect. It's a divine signature of authenticity any serious interpreter should be careful trifling with.




John
 
Last edited:

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
In certain cases where the mother is deemed important, she's given. But the fact that she's not given throughout the genealogy shows that mentioning her isn't required. When it happens there's an ancillary reason.
You said "Women aren't included in Jewish biblical lineages"
The fact that Heli's genealogy goes all the way back to Adam proves that it's the mother's genealogy since Jesus is known as the "second adam" and the "son of Adam."
??????? BTW why isn't there a NIV footnote that says that Luke involves Mary's genealogy? On the other it says that the trinity verse wasn't in the original:
and that the stoning of the adulteress weren't in the original:
Is there any authoritative source that says what you're saying about the second Adam proving it is Mary's genealogy?
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
You said "Women aren't included in Jewish biblical lineages"

Sue me. :p

Is there any authoritative source that says what you're saying about the second Adam proving it is Mary's genealogy?

Are you saying I'm not authoritative? :cool: . . .Let me repeat my syllogism and you repeat back that it's not authoritative:

Mary gets pregnant as though she was born with an egg already ready to gestate in her womb. Adam is created pregnant so that he's slated to have a firstborn son just like Mary . . . both apart from the biological serpent opening the sealed garden of either of their wombs.

The first statement in the syllogism seem to imply that if Mary's son is unique, stupendous, and Adam's intended son was either Jesus (Colossians 1:15) or at least would have himself been stupendous (since he's not like Cain, fathered by the serpent), then the lack of gism in this syllogism, i.e., the lack of male-seed come, so to say, through a fleshly serpent, seems to imply, logically, factually, that there's something wrong with everyone but Jesus since they're contaminated by the gism targeted as coming through a fleshly serpent? The serpent and his seed, seem to be at war with the seed of Mary and Adam, such that we almost think we hear echos of the seed of the woman and the seed of the biological serpent being at war?

Voila! --- Mary's genealogy is situated around the fact that her womanly seed is at war with the biological serpent's seed such that her seed is born without it, to crush it, while the father of Jesus, Joseph, has a genealogy that starts precisely when the first Jewish male becomes the first Jewish male by seemingly intuiting everything said so far in this syllogism, such that he takes a knife to his fleshly serpent ---Genesis 17 ---- so that Isaac can be born without the gism that Jesus was born without in this syllogism, which is to say Isaac, is born as a facsimile, or at least a simile, or semblance, a sign, if you will, but you won't, of Jesus the son of Adam and Mary. . . Jesus literally has two human mothers and a divine Father, while every other human is fathered by some swinging Richard and has just one mother who become parturient by means of a process that makes his father, all of our non-divine fathers, mother-four-lettered-worders. Which is probably why we all need saving in a serious way. And which might be why we need Jesus to do the saving?



John
 
Last edited:

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Are you saying I'm not authoritative? :cool: . . .Let me repeat my syllogism and you repeat back that it's not authoritative:
I mean like a Bible commentary, etc, that makes the same point that you are making. It seems like maybe you came up with the theory yourself.... BTW are you saying that Mary is the daughter of Heli? (even though it says that Joseph is the son of Heli)
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
I mean like a Bible commentary, etc, that makes the same point that you are making. It seems like maybe you came up with the theory yourself....

If I might paraphrase Ludwig Wittgenstein, I'd say commentaries are like the rungs on a ladder or stairs design as a tool to get you somewhere important. Wittgenstein said those who become enamored with the rungs, or the stairs . . . even to the point of trying to bring them with them . . . remain forever on the bottom of the rungs since it's so hard to take the rungs or the stairs with you as you climb.

A tell-tale sign of someone who is still climbing a certain set of lower rungs, or stairs, is when they yell up at someone way up there: "Hey you up there, can you throw me down the rungs you used to get way up there? I have mine strapped to my back because I don't want to lose them and I intend to showcase them to friends and God if I make it to the pearly gates."



John
 
Last edited:

SDavis

Member
This is what I found in my research: (quoted in this thread)

Also:

If Luke was talking about Mary's genealogy it should be more obvious and the theory should have originated much earlier.... (rather than in the seventh century)

Also the genealogies in Matthew and Luke both include governor Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel - assuming they're talking about the same people I thought that in both cases Shealtiel would have the same father since both are connecting him to King David. I thought the genealogy involving Solomon would be preferred while Luke talks about David's son being Nathan.
Names were commonly used ..... And it may not have become an issue as you said until in the 7th century ...... More obvious, during the centuries when the Bible was being translated and re-translated Men looked upon women as secondhand citizens, no I doubt if it would have been more obvious but less accepted ..... In the book of Matthew Joseph's lineage links Joseph directly to the kingship, but considering that Joseph was only the legal father but not biological father of Yeshua - Mary's lineage linked Jesus directly to the bloodline.

I've read a few different reasonings myself and the one that makes sense is it is Mary's lineage.

Even Elizabeth mother of John the Baptist had direct lineage to the priesthood of Aaron. And his father, Zachariah a prophet and priest ..... Oh I believe God made sure that the lineage was legally through Joseph and the bloodline through Mary.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Names were commonly used .....
So both genealogies have Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel but Shealtiel has different fathers. An explanation for this is that Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel aren't the same people in both genealogies. But there is a prophecy that Jesus would be a descendent of Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel - in particular I'd say they involve the Zerubbabel who built the temple - not a different Zerubbabel. So if it is referring to a different Zerubbabel and Shealtiel then that genealogy isn't fulfilling the prophecy.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
I've read a few different reasonings myself and the one that makes sense is it is Mary's lineage.
Is there any verse in the Bible that suggests that Luke's genealogy refers to Mary? Note in Luke 1:27 it says:
to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.
But you're saying that Mary is also a descendant of David....
 
Top