Author Topic: Genealogy Of Jesus  (Read 22143 times)

Theoretical Skeptic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
  • Bible Believer
    • Atheist Annotated Bible
Genealogy Of Jesus
« on: November 03, 2020, 11:18:20 AM »
Was Joseph Jesus' father? The simple answer to this question is that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David's line, and Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Luke 1:32, 35; Romans 1:1-4)

The difference in nearly all the names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew's is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David's son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Luke 3:31; Matthew 1:6-7) Luke follows the ancestry of Mary which shows Jesus' natural descent from David. Matthew shows Jesus' legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus' father. Both signify that Joseph wasn't Jesus' actual father, only his adoptive father and giving him legal right.

Matthew departs from his style when he comes to Jesus, saying: "Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16) He doesn't say that 'Joseph became father to Jesus' but that he was "the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born." Luke says that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Luke 1:32-35) that "Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli." Luke 3:23.

Frederic Louis Godet wrote: "This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit 1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: 'Genus matris non vocatur genus ("The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant")' ('Baba bathra,' 110, a)." Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.

Both genealogies show descent from David - through Solomon and through Nathan. (Matthew 1:6; Luke 3:31) They come together again in two persons; Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah, perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri - he was then the "son of Neri." or Neri's son-in-law. It is also possible that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his "son." (Compare Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27; 1 Chronicles 3:17-19)

So Acts 2:30; 13:23; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8; Revelation 22:16 are accurate in that Joseph was through David's line and legal father to Jesus.

Hebrews 2:16 which refers to Jesus as seed of Abraham refers to the covenant God had with Abraham, which was for a "seed" which many nations would bless themselves. (Genesis 22:17-18; Galatians 3:8) The Jews were all of the seed of Abraham (John 8:39; Matthew 3:9) but they rejected it when they rejected the Messiah. Even in Genesis 22:17-18 it mentions Abraham's seed as being a blessing to all the nations. A spiritual seed that would surpass the fleshly inheritance of the people of Israel.

Matthew 1:8 and Luke 1:31-35 is given as a contradiction but Mary was from the Davidic line and Joseph was Jesus' legal father.

At Matthew 22:45 and Mark 12:35-37 Jesus quotes David in Psalm 110. Jesus never denied that he was a descendant of David, he only points out something the Pharisees were not aware of. Jesus existed in heaven as God's first born only begotten son before the earth was made and before Abraham. (John 1:1; 8:58)

Explanation Of Difficulties In The Genealogies Of Matthew And Luke

The first chapter of Matthew the genealogy of Jesus runs from Abraham forward. In Luke chapter 3 the genealogy goes back to "Adam son of God." Part of Jesus genealogy also appears at 1 Chronicles chapters 1 - 3, running from Adam through Solomon and Zerubbabel. The books of Genesis and Ruth combined give the line from Adam to David.

The latter three lists - Genesis/Ruth, 1 Chronicles and Luke - agree fully from Adam to Arpachshad, with minor differences on certain names such as Kenan, which is "Cainan" at Luke 3:37. The Chronicles and Genesis/Ruth lists agree down to David while another "Cainan" is found in Luke's account between Arpachshad and Shelah. (Luke 3:35-36)

From Solomon to Zerubbabel the Chronicles record and Matthew agree though Matthew omits some names. One needs to address these as well as the differences in Luke's account from David to Jesus.

Genealogy involved private family records in addition to the public records of genealogies which chroniclers, such as Ezra, for example, had access to when they compiled their lists. To the registers that existed in the first century up until 70 C.E. the matter of the descent of the Messiah from Abraham through David was very important.

Matthew and Luke no doubt consulted these genealogical tables.

The question is why does Matthew leave out some names that are contained in the listing of other chroniclers? For one thing it is not necessary to name every link in the line of descent. Ezra, for example, in proving his priestly lineage, at Ezra 7:1-5, left out several names that were listed at 1 Chronicles 6:1-15. Matthew seems to have copied from the public register - leaving out some names not needed to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham and David. Access of the Hebrew Scriptures would have likely been used as well. (Ruth 4:12, 18-22 and Matthew 1:3-6)

Both the lists made by Matthew and Luke would have been publicly recognized by the Jews of that time as authentic. The Pharisees as well as the Sadducees - bitter enemies of Christianity, didn't challenge these genealogies. They could have done so up until 70 C.E. when the records were destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem.

Problems in Matthew's Genealogy?

Matthew divides the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus into three sections of 14 generations each. There is a name count of 41 rather than 42. By taking Abraham to David, 14 names, then using David as the starting name for the second 14, with Josiah as the last and finally by heading the third series of 14 names with Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and ending with Jesus. Matthew repeats the name David as the last of the first 14 names and as the first of the next 14. Then he repeats the expression "the deportation to Babylon," which he links with Josiah and his sons. (Matthew 1:17)

There is an omission of three kings of David's line between Jehoram and Uzziah (Azariah) because Jehoram married wicked Athaliah of the house of Ahab, the daughter of Jezebel bringing this God condemned strain into the line of the kings of Judah. (1 Kings 21:20-26; 2 Kings 8:25-27) Matthew named Jehoram as first in this wicked alliance, but left out the next three kings to the fourth generation - Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah.

Where Matthew indicates that Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel (Matthew 1:12) it coincides with other references (Ezra 3:2; Nehemiah 12:1; Hagai 1:14; Luke 3:27) but at 1 Chronicles 3:19 Zerubbabel is listed as the son of Pedaiah. This is because Zarubbabel was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by brother-in-law marriage or possibly after Zerubbabel's father Pedaiah died Zerubbabel was brought up by Shealtiel as his son and so legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel.

Problems With Luke's Genealogy?

Available manuscript copies of Luke list a second "Cainan" between Arpachshad (Arphaxad) and Shelah. (Luke 3:35 Compare Genesis 10:24; 11:12; 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24) Most scholars take it to be a copyist's error. "Cainan" is not found in this position in the Hebrew genealogical listings in the Hebrew or Samaritan texts, nor in any of the Targums or versions except the Septuagint. It doesn't seem to be in earlier copies of the Septuagint because Josephus - who almost always uses the Septuagint - lists Seles (Shelah) next as the son of Arphaxades (Arpachshad) - (Jewish Antiquities, I, 146 [vi, 4]) Africanus, Irenaeus, Jerome and Eusebius all rejected "Cainan" in Luke's account as an interpolation.

Bible Lists Of Jesus' Genealogy

Genesis And Ruth - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jered, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abram (Abraham), Isaac, Jacob (Israel), Judan (and Tamar), Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz (and Ruth), Obed, Jesse, David.

1 Chronicles chapters 1, 2, 3. - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon (Salma, 1 Chronicles 2:11), Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, Azariah (Uzziah), Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Amon, Josiah, Jehoiakim, Jeconiah (Jehoiachin), Shealtiel (Pedaiah) [1], Zerubbabel [2].

Matthew Chapter 1 - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah (and Tamur), Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon (and Salmon Rahab), Boaz (and Ruth), Obed, Jesse, David (and Bath-sheba), Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Uzziah (Azariah), Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekia, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Jusus (foster son).

Luke chapter 3 - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Cainan, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Arni (Ram?), Amminadab, Nahshon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David, Nathan [3], Mattatha, Menna, Melea, Eliakim, Jonam, Joseph, Judas, Symeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim, Eliezer, Jesus, Er, Elmadam, Cosam, Addi, Melchi, Neri, Shealtiel [4], Zerubbabel, Rhesa, Joanan, Joda, Josech, Semein, Mattathias, Maath, Naggai, Esli, Nahum, Amos, Mattathias, Joseph, Jannai, Melchi, Levi, Matthat, Heli (father of Mary), Joseph (Heli's son-in-law), Jesus (Mary's son).

Footnotes

[1] Zerubbabel evidently was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by brother-in-law marriage; or he was brought up by Shealtiel after his father Pedaiahs death and became legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel (1 Chronicles 3:17-19 / Ezra 3:2 / Luke 3:27).

[2] The lines meet in Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, afterward diverging. This divergence could have been through two different descendants of Zerubbabel, or Rhesa or Abiud could have been a son-in-law.

[3] At Nathan, Luke begins reckoning the genealogy through Jesus maternal line, while Matthew continues with the paternal line.

[4] Shealtiel the son of Jeconiah possibly was the son-in-law of Neri. (1 Chronicles 3:17; Luke 3:27).
“Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty.” ― Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64327
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2020, 11:55:35 AM »

Outrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14561
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2020, 11:59:33 AM »
Was Joseph Jesus' father? The simple answer to this question is that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David's line, and Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Luke 1:32, 35; Romans 1:1-4)

So you think the 'simple' answer is that a monotheistic deity impregnated her as a means to manifest an avatar to its chosen people in order to make them no longer his chosen people so he could sacrifice himself to make nothing change rather than, say, an unmarried got pregnant and made up an excuse to avoid the unfortunate consequences?

Quote
The difference in nearly all the names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew's is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David's son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew.

The genealogy isn't really the holding point in the story; it's a useful tool to point out to the biblical literalists, but nothing more than that.

Quote
Luke follows the ancestry of Mary which shows Jesus' natural descent from David.

Over six hundred years and fourteen generations it would have been difficult to throw a stone and not hit someone descended from David in that region given his seven wives (presuming the 700 count is an exaggeration) and up to 300 concubines...

Quote
Matthew shows Jesus' legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus' father.

Notwithstanding that Solomon put it around even more than David, watering down the significance of the descendance claim, didn't you just say above that Joseph wasn't Jesus' father?

Quote
Both signify that Joseph wasn't Jesus' actual father, only his adoptive father and giving him legal right.

Which would mean more if adoption was a concept with the Halacha; the modern adoption precepts in Jewish tradition were coopted from the Roman practice.

Quote
Matthew departs from his style when he comes to Jesus, saying: "Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16) He doesn't say that 'Joseph became father to Jesus' but that he was "the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born." Luke says that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Luke 1:32-35) that "Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli." Luke 3:23.

Those people were writing decades and more after the alleged events, none of whom are the people they are today claimed to be, working from third and fourth hand accounts...

Quote
Both genealogies show descent from David - through Solomon and through Nathan. (Matthew 1:6; Luke 3:31) They come together again in two persons; Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah, perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri - he was then the "son of Neri." or Neri's son-in-law. It is also possible that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his "son." (Compare Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27; 1 Chronicles 3:17-19)

It's also possible these were made up to try to fulfil older Jewish prophecies, and to slip in the conveniently revered number '14' into the lineage.

Quote
So Acts 2:30; 13:23; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8; Revelation 22:16 are accurate in that Joseph was through David's line and legal father to Jesus.

Except for being contradictory, unreliable accounts of concepts that didn't exist at the time trying to impart significance in unremarkable details.

Quote
Hebrews 2:16 which refers to Jesus as seed of Abraham refers to the covenant God had with Abraham, which was for a "seed" which many nations would bless themselves. (Genesis 22:17-18; Galatians 3:8)The Jews were all of the seed of Abraham (John 8:39; Matthew 3:9) but they rejected it when they rejected the Messiah. Even in Genesis 22:17-18 it mentions Abraham's seed as being a blessing to all the nations. A spiritual seed that would surpass the fleshly inheritance of the people of Israel.

Impressive given the mythological nature of Abraham...

Quote
At Matthew 22:45 and Mark 12:35-37 Jesus quotes David in Psalm 110. Jesus never denied that he was a descendant of David, he only points out something the Pharisees were not aware of. Jesus existed in heaven as God's first born only begotten son before the earth was made and before Abraham. (John 1:1; 8:58)

If Jesus and God existed in the same place at the same time how can they be the same person - surely, even discounting the angels and the Holy Spirit, this makes it a polytheism?

O.
Universes are forever, not just for creation...

New Atheism - because, apparently, there's a use-by date on unanswered questions.

Eminent Pedant, Interpreter of Heretical Writings, Unwarranted Harvester of Trite Nomenclature, Church of Debatable Saints

Dicky Underpants

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4369
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2020, 03:27:27 PM »
If Jesus and God existed in the same place at the same time how can they be the same person - surely, even discounting the angels and the Holy Spirit, this makes it a polytheism?

O.
Bit of info from a former believer in the very distant past - JWs don't believe that Christ and God are the same person. In Christian history this was originally known as the Arian Heresy. Their translation of John 1:1 "and the Word was a god" has indeed led to charges of polytheism.
I don't think we non-believers should get too steamed up about such theological imponderables.
"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.”

Le Bon David

SusanDoris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8265
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2020, 03:38:25 PM »
https://youtu.be/mVoPG9HtYF8
I clicked on the link - it appears to be a short burst of white noise, is that correct?!!!
The Most Honourable Sister of Titular Indecision.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64327
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2020, 03:40:23 PM »
I clicked on the link - it appears to be a short burst of white noise, is that correct?!!!
No, it should, and does for me, take you to a YouTube screen where you have to click again and it plays a version of Dem Bones
« Last Edit: November 03, 2020, 03:42:43 PM by Nearly Sane »

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64327
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2020, 03:45:03 PM »
No, it should, and does for me, take you to a YouTube screen where you have to click again and it plays a version of Dem Bones
Though white noise may have made the point just as well.

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17585
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2020, 06:26:14 PM »
Was Joseph Jesus' father? The simple answer to this question is that Jesus was actually the Son of God ...
No actually the simple answer is that we really have no real idea who Jesus' father was as there is a paucity of credible evidence. However applying Occam we should reasonably conclude that Jesus' father was a human male - whether it was Joseph or another man is simply speculation but to suggest supernatural interference (e.g. god) requires conclusive evidence that the supernatural (e.g. god) actually exists and there is no credible evidence for this therefore we should not add a layer of unevidenced speculation.

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19470
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2020, 06:33:20 PM »
TS,

Quote
Was Joseph Jesus' father? The simple answer to this question is that Jesus was actually the Son of God...

As you seem to have missed it, there is a faith sharing area on this mb. 
"Don't make me come down there."

God

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32500
  • Blurb
    • Sincere Flattery: A blog about computing
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2020, 01:49:22 PM »
Luke follows the ancestry of Mary

Nope.

Quote from: NRSV Luke 3:23
Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli
He is quite clearly following the ancestry of Joseph there. He even says so.

Let's be honest: both genealogies are fictions made up out of whole cloth. The idea that anybody living in Palestine in the first century could reliably trace their ancestry back a thousand years is nonsense. How many of us could show an unbroken line back to William I? That's pretty much the same thing.
This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may apply

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #10 on: November 08, 2020, 01:10:57 AM »
Nope.
He is quite clearly following the ancestry of Joseph there. He even says so.
If Luke wants to show that Jesus is 'one of us', literally descended from Adam, but at the same time Luke knows that Joseph was not his father (evident from the words, "as was supposed, of Joseph"), he wouldn't record  a genealogy of Joseph. So it has to be Mary's genealogy. Heli must be Joseph's father-in-law. Matthew gives Joseph's genealogy to show Jesus' right to the throne through Solomon, by adoption.
Quote
Let's be honest: both genealogies are fictions made up out of whole cloth. The idea that anybody living in Palestine in the first century could reliably trace their ancestry back a thousand years is nonsense. How many of us could show an unbroken line back to William I? That's pretty much the same thing.
Queen Elizabeth (and thus lots of other people in her family) can trace her ancestry back to king Rollo the Viking, William I's grandfather.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2020, 01:21:23 AM by Spud »

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32500
  • Blurb
    • Sincere Flattery: A blog about computing
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #11 on: November 08, 2020, 12:35:08 PM »
If Luke wants to show that Jesus is 'one of us', literally descended from Adam, but at the same time Luke knows that Joseph was not his father (evident from the words, "as was supposed, of Joseph"), he wouldn't record  a genealogy of Joseph.

That is possibly true, but no amount of wanting Luke to be recording Mary's ancestry can alter the text which clearly and unambiguously starts with Joseph.

Quote
So it has to be Mary's genealogy.

And it isn't. That mans your premise must be false.


Quote
Heli must be Joseph's father-in-law.

Luke says "Joseph son of Heli"


Quote
Queen Elizabeth (and thus lots of other people in her family) can trace her ancestry back to king Rollo the Viking, William I's grandfather.
Queen Elizabeth is not a carpenter in a backwater village in Berkshire.
This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may apply

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2020, 01:29:11 PM »
That is possibly true, but no amount of wanting Luke to be recording Mary's ancestry can alter the text which clearly and unambiguously starts with Joseph.

And it isn't. That mans your premise must be false.


Luke says "Joseph son of Heli"

Queen Elizabeth is not a carpenter in a backwater village in Berkshire.

If we take this verse as meaning Jesus was the son, as was supposed, of Joseph, who was the son of Heli, etc down to 'the son of God', then the effect is to make Jesus supposedly (but not really) the son of Adam and supposedly the son of God. However if we understand it to mean that Jesus was supposedly the son of Joseph, but literally the son of Heli and so on down to Adam and ultimately God, then it fits with Luke's general teaching that Jesus is actually descended from Adam and actually the son of God.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2020, 01:34:36 PM by Spud »

SteveH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10402
  • God? She's black.
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2020, 01:51:47 PM »
Who was Jesus' brother?
Jim Davidson.
He was called James, and was thus, like Jesus, descended from King David. Therefore, Jim Davidson. QED.
I have a pet termite. His name is Clint. Clint eats wood.

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17585
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2020, 02:15:47 PM »
If we take this verse as meaning Jesus was the son, as was supposed, of Joseph, who was the son of Heli, etc down to 'the son of God', then the effect is to make Jesus supposedly (but not really) the son of Adam and supposedly the son of God. However if we understand it to mean that Jesus was supposedly the son of Joseph, but literally the son of Heli and so on down to Adam and ultimately God, then it fits with Luke's general teaching that Jesus is actually descended from Adam and actually the son of God.
Let's ignore the notion that it would have pretty well impossible to trace back so many generations in those days, without any kind of formal records of births, deaths etc.

But surely if the biblical suggestion that Adam and Eve were the first people then surely by that argument everyone would have to have been descended from Adam.

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #15 on: November 09, 2020, 02:32:15 PM »
Let's ignore the notion that it would have pretty well impossible to trace back so many generations in those days, without any kind of formal records of births, deaths etc.

But surely if the biblical suggestion that Adam and Eve were the first people then surely by that argument everyone would have to have been descended from Adam.
Yes, you're right. What does go in favour of one genealogy being of Joseph and  the other of Mary is that everyone has two genealogies, and that there are a few ways in which Joseph's name could have ended up in Mary's line (levirate marriage, or the husband's name being automatically substituted for the wife's, for example).
« Last Edit: November 09, 2020, 03:03:26 PM by Spud »

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17585
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #16 on: November 09, 2020, 03:16:40 PM »
Yes, you're right. What does go in favour of one genealogy being of Joseph and  the other of Mary is that everyone has two genealogies, and that there are a few ways in which Joseph's name could have ended up in Mary's line (levirate marriage, or the husband's name being automatically substituted for the wife's, for example).
I'm sorry - that's non-sense. There is nothing in Luke 23-38 to indicate that this is anything other than the genealogy of Joseph:

'He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, etc etc'

That's Joseph's lineage, not Mary's.

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #17 on: November 09, 2020, 04:45:36 PM »
Let's ignore the notion that it would have pretty well impossible to trace back so many generations in those days, without any kind of formal records of births, deaths etc.

But surely if the biblical suggestion that Adam and Eve were the first people then surely by that argument everyone would have to have been descended from Adam.
Luke knows that Joseph is not Jesus' real father, and that Mary is his real mother. What then is the point in him tracing Joseph's line back to Adam?

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #18 on: November 09, 2020, 05:58:45 PM »
I'm sorry - that's non-sense. There is nothing in Luke 23-38 to indicate that this is anything other than the genealogy of Joseph:

'He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, etc etc'

That's Joseph's lineage, not Mary's.
As a point of order, it actually says, "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph, 24the [son] of Eli, the [son] of Matthat" (Youngs Literal Translation)

Given that Greek affords 'considerable latitude' in translation (to quote John MacArthur), and the lack of definite article before 'son of Joseph', MacArthur thinks it could be rendered, "Jesus Himself, supposedly Joseph's son, was about thirty years old when He began His ministry, being a son of Heli." link

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32500
  • Blurb
    • Sincere Flattery: A blog about computing
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #19 on: November 09, 2020, 06:44:19 PM »
If we take this verse as meaning Jesus was the son, as was supposed, of Joseph, who was the son of Heli, etc down to 'the son of God', then the effect is to make Jesus supposedly (but not really) the son of Adam and supposedly the son of God.
Which is actually what it says.

Quote
However if we understand it to mean...
Why would we understand it to mean something other than what it says?
This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may apply

Sebastian Toe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7719
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #20 on: November 09, 2020, 08:09:26 PM »
Luke knows that Joseph is not Jesus' real father, and that Mary is his real mother. What then is the point in him tracing Joseph's line back to Adam?
If Adam is the first man, then everyone, the entire human race would by default be descendants of him.
So what indeed would be the point of a pretty pointless exercise?
Do you know?
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends.'
Albert Einstein

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #21 on: November 09, 2020, 11:39:04 PM »
If Adam is the first man, then everyone, the entire human race would by default be descendants of him.
So what indeed would be the point of a pretty pointless exercise?
Do you know?
Yes, to make it hard for whoever is doing the reading in church, and to sort out the men readers from the boy readers.

Owlswing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6945
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #22 on: November 10, 2020, 12:49:11 AM »

 Yes, to make it hard for whoever is doing the reading in church, and to sort out the men readers from the boy readers.


Gawd - a day I never thought to see - Spud making a joke! A weak one, but a joke nevertheless.

I mean, from my point of view ALL his posts are a joke, weaker even than the one above but, hey ho!
The Holy Bible, probably the most diabolical work of fiction ever to be visited upon mankind.

An it harm none, do what you will; an it harm some, do what you must!

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #23 on: November 10, 2020, 08:07:17 AM »
If Adam is the first man, then everyone, the entire human race would by default be descendants of him.
So what indeed would be the point of a pretty pointless exercise?
Do you know?
So to be clear, if this is Joseph's genealogy then for no apparent reason Luke went to the trouble of showing that Joseph was descended from Adam.
Since Luke is clearly talking about Jesus being descended from Adam, and since he also implies that Jesus wasn't the true son of Joseph but he was the true son of Mary, then the genealogy must be that of Mary. The reason she is not mentioned is because women weren't mentioned in Hebrew genealogies.

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17585
Re: Genealogy Of Jesus
« Reply #24 on: November 10, 2020, 09:28:58 AM »
So to be clear, if this is Joseph's genealogy then for no apparent reason Luke went to the trouble of showing that Joseph was descended from Adam.
Since Luke is clearly talking about Jesus being descended from Adam, and since he also implies that Jesus wasn't the true son of Joseph but he was the true son of Mary, then the genealogy must be that of Mary. The reason she is not mentioned is because women weren't mentioned in Hebrew genealogies.
Baseless assertions - you have no evidence whatsoever that:

'...the genealogy must be that of Mary' or
'The reason she is not mentioned is because women weren't mentioned in Hebrew genealogies.'

I think the more likely explanation for some people to try to argue black is white, when it is pretty obvious that this is Joseph's genealogy, not Mary's is that Luke and Matthew disagree markedly on the genealogy creating an embarrassment for those people who want the Gospels to be true and therefore a convoluted 'work around' is proposed, in other words that Matthew has Joseph's genealogy and Luke has Mary's when there is no evidence for this at all.