Bible Study Genealogy of Christ

[andy153]

Hello all,

this is my first post on this forum so be gentle with me :P

I would be grateful to here your views on why there appears to be differences in the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. If they are indeed intended as genealogical records.

with love and respect, andy153 :D

 

[Khristeeanos]

I read something the other day that was about this and fascinated me, but I can't remember the source.

Anyways, it says that the Jews had a rule that said if a married man died, his brother would marry his widow and produce children for him.

It went into detail how this is what happened and thus the apparent contradiction. If I remember where I saw it, I will post it here.

 

[Blazin Bones]

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 276#140276

Look for Free's response on on the page I linked you to. One account is from a more legal response and the oither is from the more personal perspective.

 

[Adams son]

Hello all,

this is my first post on this forum so be gentle with me :P

I would be grateful to here your views on why there appears to be differences in the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. If they are indeed intended as genealogical records.

with love and respect, andy153 :D

Only creative imaginations can deal with this one since both genealogies most naturally show Joseph as Jesus' (adoptive) father and then both go on to list the father of Joseph and so on.

 

[andy153]

Only creative imaginations can deal with this one since both genealogies most naturally show Joseph as Jesus' (adoptive) father and then both go on to list the father of Joseph and so on.

I am grateful for the replies so far. However, I was unaware that a creative mind-set was a requirement for understanding genealogy. :roll:

My understanding is that there is no genealogical record in Matthew. Luke contains a correct record of Josephs ancestry back to Adam. :

with love and respect, Andy153

 

[Adams son]

I am grateful for the replies so far. However, I was unaware that a creative mind-set was a requirement for understanding genealogy. :roll:

Well I don't remember anyone saying that is was. However, it will take a creative imagination to harmonize the two genealogical lists given the facts of both of them.

My understanding is that there is no genealogical record in Matthew. Luke contains a correct record of Josephs ancestry back to Adam. :

with love and respect, Andy153

No genealogical record in Matthew? And how did you come to that conclusion?

"The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah... "(Matthew 1:1).

 

[andy153]

Well I don't remember anyone saying that is was. However, it will take a creative imagination to harmonize the two genealogical lists given the facts of both of them.

My understanding is that there is no genealogical record in Matthew. Luke contains a correct record of Josephs ancestry back to Adam. :

with love and respect, Andy153

No genealogical record in Matthew? And how did you come to that conclusion?

"The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah... "(Matthew 1:1).

There is no genealogical record in Matthew.

Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (KJV)

The first verse of Matthew states that it is not a genealogical record, it is a book of generations : there is a difference.

Luke contains a true genealogy of Joseph. The names recorded in Matthew are not only different but there are also fewer names: therfore, if Luke's record is true then Matthew isn't giving us a geneology. They can't and shouldn't be harmonized.

with love and respect, Andy153

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

Hello all,

this is my first post on this forum so be gentle with me :P

I would be grateful to here your views on why there appears to be differences in the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. If they are indeed intended as genealogical records.

with love and respect, andy153 :D

Simple:

One is for Mary and one is for Joseph.

Also consider the following from carm.org:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why are there different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3?
Matthew 1:16 - Luke 3:23

Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem. They are different. Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side).

There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.

Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy is of Mary and the other of Joseph, even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship. Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies? Does anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice? Not at all. They knew the cultural context and had no problem with it knowing that one was of Joseph and the other of Mary. Third, notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.

Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.

Again, the early church knew this and had no problem with it. It is only the critics of today who narrow their vision into a literalness and require this to be a "contradiction" when in reality we have an explanation that is more than sufficient.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Source: carm.org

 

[Adams son]

Well I don't remember anyone saying that is was. However, it will take a creative imagination to harmonize the two genealogical lists given the facts of both of them.

My understanding is that there is no genealogical record in Matthew. Luke contains a correct record of Josephs ancestry back to Adam. :

with love and respect, Andy153

No genealogical record in Matthew? And how did you come to that conclusion?

"The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah... "(Matthew 1:1).

There is no genealogical record in Matthew.

Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (KJV)

The first verse of Matthew states that it is not a genealogical record, it is a book of generations : there is a difference.

Hmmm really? Is this where "imagination" comes in and are you insisting some translations are wrong to write "the record of the genealogy" at Matthew 1:1?

Please explain this "difference"?

Luke contains a true genealogy of Joseph. The names recorded in Matthew are not only different but there are also fewer names: therfore, if Luke's record is true then Matthew isn't giving us a geneology. They can't and shouldn't be harmonized.

And just what is Matthew giving us exactly?

 

[Adams son]

Hello all,

this is my first post on this forum so be gentle with me :P

I would be grateful to here your views on why there appears to be differences in the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. If they are indeed intended as genealogical records.

with love and respect, andy153 :D

Simple:

One is for Mary and one is for Joseph.

Also consider the following from carm.org:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why are there different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3?
Matthew 1:16 - Luke 3:23

Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem. They are different. Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side).

There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.

And where is the evidence that this two Jospeh + Mary "solution" is not just a convenient invention designed out of necessity?

Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy is of Mary and the other of Joseph, even though both mention Joseph.

And let us just ignore the fact that BOTH genealogies list the father of Joseph right?

In other words, the Mary was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship. Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies? Does anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice? Not at all. They knew the cultural context and had no problem with it knowing that one was of Joseph and the other of Mary. Third, notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.

Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.

The curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate? How is that so? These genealogies say Jesus is the "son of David" through Joseph whether you like to call that the "legal" line or not. That puts Jeconiah and Jesus in the same descendent validation as David and Jesus.

 

[andy153]

Dear Adams Son,

Genealogy is a numerical descent from your ancestors directly from father to father to yourself. If you are researching or indeed relating your genealogy, you begin with yourself and work backwards, as in Luke.

Generations, like that in the book of Matthew is about how things are produced by procreation or by any other means.

The numbers in genealogy cant lie they must remain constant.

Matthew contains no genealogy. It does contain a list of decsent but not a genealogical account of Joseph or Mary or anyone else.

Here's why there is no genealogy in Matthew.

In the first verse of Matthews gospel, Jesus is quoted as being the son Of David and the son of Abraham. If it were a true genealogical record Jesus would only be mentioned as a son of either David or Abraham not both.

If it were a genealogical record Abraham would be listed before David, in Matthew it's the other way round in verse 1.

The names are different from that which are recorded in Luke. Some justify this by saying that it is Marys genealogy recored in Matthew. (not so)

The numbers are also different from Luke. In a true genalogy the numbers stay the same.

( me, my father, grandfather, great grandfather = 4)

dosen't matter whose genealogy were dealing with the numbers stay the same. Matthew when recording from Abraham is something like 16 or so names sort of what is recorded in Luke.
The Jewish people were not that careless when it came to their genealogy.

In Luke's account there are no women mentioned, in Matthew's there are five : Thamar, Rachab, Ruth, the wife of Urias, and Mary.
Women have no seed in themselves and were not generally included in genealogical records.

The book itself states that it is a book of generations not genealogy.

The names come forward not backward as in Luke.

Look at the other book of generation in Genesis (Adam's) the name come forward there as well.

look forward to your reply.

with love and respect, andy153

 

[Adams son]

Dear Adams Son,

Genealogy is a numerical descent from your ancestors directly from father to father to yourself. If you are researching or indeed relating your genealogy, you begin with yourself and work backwards, as in Luke.

That is quite incorrect. I have done genealogy for many years. There are two cheif ways to make a genealogical list: descending and ascending. Matthew is descending and Luke is an ascending list. I can do BOTH with my ancestors too.

Generations, like that in the book of Matthew is about how things are produced by procreation or by any other means.

Genealogy is an account of procreation for goodness sake.

The numbers in genealogy cant lie they must remain constant.

Matthew contains no genealogy.

Even though matthew contains a genealogy of Jesus

[quote[
It does contain a list of decsent but not a genealogical account of Joseph or Mary or anyone else.
[/quote]

So it is a list of descent showing what then?

Here's why there is no genealogy in Matthew.

In the first verse of Matthews gospel, Jesus is quoted as being the son Of David and the son of Abraham. If it were a true genealogical record Jesus would only be mentioned as a son of either David or Abraham not both.

Where did you get such a ridiculous notion? Jesus is the son of both of them.

If it were a genealogical record Abraham would be listed before David, in Matthew it's the other way round in verse 1.

Incorrect. There is no reason one should be listed before the other because it is a statement of fact, not a genealogical order of time.

The names are different from that which are recorded in Luke. Some justify this by saying that it is Marys genealogy recored in Matthew. (not so)

The numbers are also different from Luke. In a true genalogy the numbers stay the same.

( me, my father, grandfather, great grandfather = 4)

dosen't matter whose genealogy were dealing with the numbers stay the same. Matthew when recording from Abraham is something like 16 or so names sort of what is recorded in Luke.
The Jewish people were not that careless when it came to their genealogy.

You still have not explained why we have translations which say "genealogy" at Matthew 1:1. Are you saying those scholars are incorrect?

In Luke's account there are no women mentioned, in Matthew's there are five : Thamar, Rachab, Ruth, the wife of Urias, and Mary.
Women have no seed in themselves and were not generally included in genealogical records.

The book itself states that it is a book of generations not genealogy.

The names come forward not backward as in Luke.

Look at the other book of generation in Genesis (Adam's) the name come forward there as well.

look forward to your reply.

with love and respect, andy153

Your whole post argues that one is not a genealogy because the two lists are different. You are simply stating the obvious. But to therefore claim that one is not a genealogical list at all is ridiculous. In Matthew it lists fathers in chronological order down to Jesus. We call this "genealogy."

 

[Adams son]

Dear Adams Son,

Genealogy is a numerical descent from your ancestors directly from father to father to yourself. If you are researching or indeed relating your genealogy, you begin with yourself and work backwards, as in Luke.

That is quite incorrect. I have done genealogy for many years. There are two cheif ways to make a genealogical list: descending and ascending. Matthew is descending and Luke is an ascending list. I can do BOTH with my ancestors too.

Generations, like that in the book of Matthew is about how things are produced by procreation or by any other means.

Genealogy is an account of procreation for goodness sake.

The numbers in genealogy cant lie they must remain constant.

Matthew contains no genealogy.

Even though matthew contains a genealogy of Jesus

[quote[
It does contain a list of decsent but not a genealogical account of Joseph or Mary or anyone else.
[/quote]

So it is a list of descent showing what then?

Here's why there is no genealogy in Matthew.

In the first verse of Matthews gospel, Jesus is quoted as being the son Of David and the son of Abraham. If it were a true genealogical record Jesus would only be mentioned as a son of either David or Abraham not both.

Where did you get such a ridiculous notion? Jesus is the son of both of them.

If it were a genealogical record Abraham would be listed before David, in Matthew it's the other way round in verse 1.

Incorrect. There is no reason one should be listed before the other because it is a statement of fact, not a genealogical order of time.

The names are different from that which are recorded in Luke. Some justify this by saying that it is Marys genealogy recored in Matthew. (not so)

The numbers are also different from Luke. In a true genalogy the numbers stay the same.

( me, my father, grandfather, great grandfather = 4)

dosen't matter whose genealogy were dealing with the numbers stay the same. Matthew when recording from Abraham is something like 16 or so names sort of what is recorded in Luke.
The Jewish people were not that careless when it came to their genealogy.

You still have not explained why we have translations which say "genealogy" at Matthew 1:1. Are you saying those scholars are incorrect?

In Luke's account there are no women mentioned, in Matthew's there are five : Thamar, Rachab, Ruth, the wife of Urias, and Mary.
Women have no seed in themselves and were not generally included in genealogical records.

The book itself states that it is a book of generations not genealogy.

The names come forward not backward as in Luke.

Look at the other book of generation in Genesis (Adam's) the name come forward there as well.

look forward to your reply.

with love and respect, andy153

Your whole post argues that one is not a genealogy because the two lists are different. You are simply stating the obvious by saying they are different and then claiming that since they are different one is not a genealogy. I think you had better check your reasoning here. And to therefore claim that one is not a genealogical list at all is ridiculous. In Matthew it lists fathers in chronological order down to Jesus. We call this "genealogy" a listing of ancestral generations, whether ascending or descending.

 

[andy153]

Dear Adams Son,

thanks for your post,

Again I can only repeat what I have said. There is no genealogy in Matthew.

Where did you get such a ridiculous notion? Jesus is the son of both of them.

So you think Jesus had two fathers, David and Abraham. Can you explain your reasoning here. Are you saying that this is Mary's genealogy?

Incorrect. There is no reason one should be listed before the other because it is a statement of fact, not a genealogical order of time.

So names can be placed in any order in a genealogical record now can they? You prove the point I make, if it were a genealogy the names wold be in order.

Like yourself I too have done genealogy for many years, it starts with you and goes back in time. You trace your ancestry not your decsendants. To say you can start in the past and come forward is quite frankly ridiculous.

Genealogy is an account of procreation for goodness sake.

who said it wasn't ?

If as you insist Matthew contains a genealogy where are the missing names ? Are you saying that it is an incomplete record ?

So it is a list of descent showing what then?

The clue to that is why Solomon is listed after David and not Nathan as in Luke.

You still have not explained why we have translations which say "genealogy" at Matthew 1:1. Are you saying those scholars are incorrect?

Yes

Your whole post argues that one is not a genealogy because the two lists are different. You are simply stating the obvious by saying they are different and then claiming that since they are different one is not a genealogy. I think you had better check your reasoning here. And to therefore claim that one is not a genealogical list at all is ridiculous. In Matthew it lists fathers in chronological order down to Jesus. We call this "genealogy" a listing of ancestral generations, whether ascending or descending.

Joseph is listed in Matthew as being begat by Jacob, in Luke it states he was the son of Heli. Joseph had only one father (as did Christ) one of the records can't be a true genealogical record.

As for basing my arguement on the fact that the two lists are merely different, I suggest you reread my post.

with love and respect, andy153

 

[Adams son]

Dear Adams Son,

thanks for your post,

Again I can only repeat what I have said. There is no genealogy in Matthew.

Where did you get such a ridiculous notion? Jesus is the son of both of them.

So you think Jesus had two fathers, David and Abraham. Can you explain your reasoning here. Are you saying that this is Mary's genealogy?

Yes he had several fathers just as both you and I do. Ever here of the song called "Faith of our fathers?" It isn't talking about your daddy but about all our ancestral fathers, whether they be fathers, grandfathers, or great grandfathers.... they are all fathers. It is standard and common Bible terminology to call someones distant ancestor their father.

[quote:202a2]Incorrect. There is no reason one should be listed before the other because it is a statement of fact, not a genealogical order of time.

So names can be placed in any order in a genealogical record now can they?[/quote:202a2]

Whoever said such a thing? You are very confused.

You prove the point I make, if it were a genealogy the names wold be in order.

They are in chronological order. Anyone can see that.

Like yourself I too have done genealogy for many years, it starts with you and goes back in time.

No it does not necessarily start with you and go back in time and if you have done much genealogy you would know that. It can start with your distanct ancestor and descend down to you too. The Jews did it that way and we do it that way today too.

You trace your ancestry not your decsendants. To say you can start in the past and come forward is quite frankly ridiculous.

Well then you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

[quote:202a2]Genealogy is an account of procreation for goodness sake.

who said it wasn't ?
[/quote:202a2]

You did.

[
If as you insist Matthew contains a genealogy where are the missing names ?

What "missing names?"

Are you saying that it is an incomplete record ?

NO. I do hope that is abundantly clear.

[quote:202a2]So it is a list of descent showing what then?

The clue to that is why Solomon is listed after David and not Nathan as in Luke.
[/quote:202a2]

Please answer the question and stop beating around the bush.

[quote:202a2]You still have not explained why we have translations which say "genealogy" at Matthew 1:1. Are you saying those scholars are incorrect?

Yes
[/quote:202a2]

Based on what evidence of the Greek text at Matthew 1:1 are you insisting these Greek scholars are wrong?

[quote:202a2]Your whole post argues that one is not a genealogy because the two lists are different. You are simply stating the obvious by saying they are different and then claiming that since they are different one is not a genealogy. I think you had better check your reasoning here. And to therefore claim that one is not a genealogical list at all is ridiculous. In Matthew it lists fathers in chronological order down to Jesus. We call this "genealogy" a listing of ancestral generations, whether ascending or descending.

Joseph is listed in Matthew as being begat by Jacob, in Luke it states he was the son of Heli. Joseph had only one father (as did Christ) one of the records can't be a true genealogical record.
[/quote:202a2]

That's right. One of them must be wrong unless you can come up with a viable explanation. Saying that Matthew's list is not a genealogy is ridiculous.

Here let me help you think a little bit. The year is A.D. 72. A very nice man comes along and gives you a Gospel of Matthew scroll and like many many other people you treasure it because it is the only Christian document you possess You have no Gospel of Luke scroll and have never seen one yet. What do you see regarding Jesus' lineage in Matthew's opening comments?

 

[andy153]

Dear Adam's Son,

Jesus had only one father and that was his father in heaven. Your understanding of scripture is as clear as your understanding of genealogy.

Luke contains a genealogy of Joseph it goes all the way back to Adam, there is a reason for this which I wont go into at the moment.

In Luke the words make it clear that it is a genealogical record, "son of" is used to describe the relationships between the names. In Matthew the wording is very different, "begat" is used instead of "son of". Another clear indication that the author is relating something other than genealogical data. I would suggest you familiarize with the different meanings of the word.

It may be said the inventor of the wheel begat the bicycle yet he never made a bike at any time, never saw a bike, never rode a bike , never even thought of a bike, yet there is a connection. However to say that the inventor of the wheel is the father of the bicycle would be streching it to far.

This is what you and your Greek thinking friends do and in the process blind yourselfs to the real truth that is in Matthew chapter 1.

Numbers remain constant in a true genealogiacal record. A child would know this. Me to my great grandfather 4 names, you to your great grandfather 4 names, anyone in the world to their great grandfather 4 names. The Jews were meticulous in their genealgy, to suggest that one author gives a full listing from Abraham to Joseph while the other not only missed out names but also got them wrong is just silly.

There are obvious father and son relationships in the record but the information is not provided to prove sonship as in Luke.

Here let me help you think a little bit. The year is A.D. 72. A very nice man comes along and gives you a Gospel of Matthew scroll and like many many other people you treasure it because it is the only Christian document you possess You have no Gospel of Luke scroll and have never seen one yet. What do you see regarding Jesus' lineage in Matthew's opening comments?

Jesus has only 1 in his genealogy God the Father - Jesus.

David or Abraham have no seed connection with Jesus : John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

The first verse of Matthew's gospel indentifies Jesus not with David or Abraham but with their son's Solomon and Isaac. This is why the verse says son of David and Abraham. They had many sons but it is the temple building son and the son of sacrifice that Jesus is being identified with.

There is no genealogy in Matthew, if you knew why genealogy was important to the Jews you would know that. I am happy for you to believe as you wish as I am not trying to convince or convert you of anything.

Thanks for the discussion, we shall have to agree to disagree. May the Lord bless you.

I'll allow you to have the final word.

with love and respect, andy153

 

[Adams son]

Dear Adam's Son,

Jesus had only one father and that was his father in heaven. Your understanding of scripture is as clear as your understanding of genealogy.

Luke contains a genealogy of Joseph it goes all the way back to Adam, there is a reason for this which I wont go into at the moment.

In Luke the words make it clear that it is a genealogical record, "son of" is used to describe the relationships between the names. In Matthew the wording is very different, "begat" is used instead of "son of". Another clear indication that the author is relating something other than genealogical data. I would suggest you familiarize with the different meanings of the word.

It may be said the inventor of the wheel begat the bicycle yet he never made a bike at any time, never saw a bike, never rode a bike , never even thought of a bike, yet there is a connection. However to say that the inventor of the wheel is the father of the bicycle would be streching it to far.

This is what you and your Greek thinking friends do and in the process blind yourselfs to the real truth that is in Matthew chapter 1.

Numbers remain constant in a true genealogiacal record. A child would know this. Me to my great grandfather 4 names, you to your great grandfather 4 names, anyone in the world to their great grandfather 4 names. The Jews were meticulous in their genealgy, to suggest that one author gives a full listing from Abraham to Joseph while the other not only missed out names but also got them wrong is just silly.

There are obvious father and son relationships in the record but the information is not provided to prove sonship as in Luke.

Here let me help you think a little bit. The year is A.D. 72. A very nice man comes along and gives you a Gospel of Matthew scroll and like many many other people you treasure it because it is the only Christian document you possess You have no Gospel of Luke scroll and have never seen one yet. What do you see regarding Jesus' lineage in Matthew's opening comments?

Jesus has only 1 in his genealogy God the Father - Jesus.

David or Abraham have no seed connection with Jesus : John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

The first verse of Matthew's gospel indentifies Jesus not with David or Abraham but with their son's Solomon and Isaac. This is why the verse says son of David and Abraham. They had many sons but it is the temple building son and the son of sacrifice that Jesus is being identified with.

There is no genealogy in Matthew, if you knew why genealogy was important to the Jews you would know that. I am happy for you to believe as you wish as I am not trying to convince or convert you of anything.

Thanks for the discussion, we shall have to agree to disagree. May the Lord bless you.

I'll allow you to have the final word.

with love and respect, andy153

Here let me make it easy for you. If it is not a genealogy of Jesus, just what is this list in Matthew chapter 1 anyway? (1) What is it and (2) why did Matthew put it there?

 

[andy153]

[Here let me make it easy for you. If it is not a genealogy of Jesus, just what is this list in Matthew chapter 1 anyway? (1) What is it and (2) why did Matthew put it there?

Do you think your patronizing tone intimidates me ?

You believe it is a genealogical record I don't.

If you believe you are correct then why ask for further comment ? Be content in your truth.

Again I would sincerely like to thank you for the interesting debate and say God bless you brother in Jesus name.

with love and respect, andy153

 

[Michael Burke]

Adam's Son wrote>>>And where is the evidence that this two Jospeh + Mary "solution" is not just a convenient invention designed out of necessity?
...The curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate? How is that so? These genealogies say Jesus is the "son of David" through Joseph whether you like to call that the "legal" line or not. That puts Jeconiah and Jesus in the same descendent validation as David and Jesus.[/quote]

Please share your understanding of this. How do you explain it?

 

[liafailrock]

This subject comes up over and over again on many Christian forums.

There is no contradiction between Matthew's and Luke's genealogy. Matthew's genealogy shows Jesus' LEGAL lineage thru Joseph. The future Messiah had to have the legal right to the throne of David AND be a son of David. However, as a clue, Michael brought up an interesting point about the curse in Matthew's genealogy.

Luke's genealogy shows Jesus human lineage thru Mary to King David, thus, he is of David's seed.

I can use the same language the Bible uses and produce TWO different genealogies for my sons and yet they'd be correct. I don't understand how people claim they "contradict" unless they are unfamiliar with geneology.

As for the statement:

That is quite incorrect. I have done genealogy for many years. There are two cheif ways to make a genealogical list: descending and ascending. Matthew is descending and Luke is an ascending list. I can do BOTH with my ancestors too.

Half right. Basically there are three ways. Pedigree, family tree, and surname. The difference between a family tree is that someone's descendents are traced (descending) which are the SEED of that individual, but in the case of Israel, their offspring are not necessarily from the same TRIBE. That has to do with surname research.