Was Joseph Mary's Father?

[westtexas]

Sinthesis, for some reason my computer keeps kicking me off of the "is scripture corrupt" thread, so I started a new one.
We can confer back to the OT and scripture will give us the 42 generations without counting King David twice. It also puts to rest the notion that Joseph could have even possibly been Mary's father.
Matthew 1:11 says "And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren,..." If you confer back to 1Chron.3:15-17 you will see that Jechonias is the GRANDSON of Josiah. You can look at these verses but they give you Josiah>Jehoiakim>Jechoniah>Salathiel. From King David to the exile ends 12)Amon 13)Josias 14)Jehoiakim. From the restoration to Christ starts 1)Jechonias 2)Salathiel
Our Lord placed a curse on Jehoiakim and tradition says that the Jews refused to write his name on geneologies after that. This curse is the reason Joseph could not possibly be the father of Mary. Jeremiah 22:18-30 tells the story of this curse but the last verse says 22:30--"Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." The lineage in Matthew is the Royal Lineage of our Lord ending with Joseph and his wife. The lineage in Luke 3 is the blood lineage through Mary. If you place Joseph and THEN MARY in Jehoiakim's lineage you have carried down this curse to Mary and her seed, and then by God's own words, Christ cannot sit upon the throne of David.

Westtexas

 

[jasoncran]

that presents a problem for mm, then as jesus couldnt be the messiah if mm continues to hold the contra position,btw mary and joseph were distant cousins.

 

[westtexas]

btw mary and joseph were distant cousins.

Agreed. Both can trace their lineage back to King David. Joseph through David's son Solomon and Mary through David's son Nathan.
Westtexas

 

[jasoncran]

btw mary and joseph were distant cousins.

Agreed. Both can trace their lineage back to King David. Joseph through David's son Solomon and Mary through David's son Nathan.
Westtexas

i often wonder if that nathan is the same as nathan the prophet.

 

[Physicist]

my difficient Bible

Sinthesis, for some reason my computer keeps kicking me off of the "is scripture corrupt" thread, so I started a new one.
We can confer back to the OT and scripture will give us the 42 generations without counting King David twice. It also puts to rest the notion that Joseph could have even possibly been Mary's father.
Matthew 1:11 says "And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren,..." If you confer back to 1Chron.3:15-17 you will see that Jechonias is the GRANDSON of Josiah. You can look at these verses but they give you Josiah>Jehoiakim>Jechoniah>Salathiel. From King David to the exile ends 12)Amon 13)Josias 14)Jehoiakim. From the restoration to Christ starts 1)Jechonias 2)Salathiel
Our Lord placed a curse on Jehoiakim and tradition says that the Jews refused to write his name on geneologies after that. This curse is the reason Joseph could not possibly be the father of Mary. Jeremiah 22:18-30 tells the story of this curse but the last verse says 22:30--"Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." The lineage in Matthew is the Royal Lineage of our Lord ending with Joseph and his wife. The lineage in Luke 3 is the blood lineage through Mary. If you place Joseph and THEN MARY in Jehoiakim's lineage you have carried down this curse to Mary and her seed, and then by God's own words, Christ cannot sit upon the throne of David.

Westtexas

Strange, my version of the Lukan geneology does not list Mary at all. Rather it lists Joseph and his ancestors.

 

[Mysteryman]

btw mary and joseph were distant cousins.

Agreed. Both can trace their lineage back to King David. Joseph through David's son Solomon and Mary through David's son Nathan.
Westtexas

i often wonder if that nathan is the same as nathan the prophet.

Simply - No !

 

[jasoncran]

theres no verse that says which nathan that was only the nathan the prophet. not david's son or someone else son.

i dont recall that in the bible.

 

[Packrat]

Sinthesis, for some reason my computer keeps kicking me off of the "is scripture corrupt" thread, so I started a new one.
We can confer back to the OT and scripture will give us the 42 generations without counting King David twice. It also puts to rest the notion that Joseph could have even possibly been Mary's father.
Matthew 1:11 says "And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren,..." If you confer back to 1Chron.3:15-17 you will see that Jechonias is the GRANDSON of Josiah. You can look at these verses but they give you Josiah>Jehoiakim>Jechoniah>Salathiel. From King David to the exile ends 12)Amon 13)Josias 14)Jehoiakim. From the restoration to Christ starts 1)Jechonias 2)Salathiel
Our Lord placed a curse on Jehoiakim and tradition says that the Jews refused to write his name on geneologies after that. This curse is the reason Joseph could not possibly be the father of Mary. Jeremiah 22:18-30 tells the story of this curse but the last verse says 22:30--"Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." The lineage in Matthew is the Royal Lineage of our Lord ending with Joseph and his wife. The lineage in Luke 3 is the blood lineage through Mary. If you place Joseph and THEN MARY in Jehoiakim's lineage you have carried down this curse to Mary and her seed, and then by God's own words, Christ cannot sit upon the throne of David.

Westtexas

I did some research on the genealogies a while back. I think I found that even if Jeconiah in the genealogies were referring to the cursed king then Jesus would fall under this curse no matter if he were from Joseph or Mary (due possibly to levirate marriage; I forget though). But the Jeconiah mentioned in the genealogies (or at least one of them) is not the same cursed king. It's just been always assumed that he was. By the way, both lineages in Matthew and Luke stem from David and are thus royal. But Jesus is of David's seed without being of the cursed Jeconiah's seed.

 

[Sinthesis]

Interesting read:
http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/5_6/genealogy

 

[Mysteryman]

The first chapter of Matthew is --- not ---- a geneology ! Its --- generations ! :yes

 

[Mysteryman]

Heli is not the father of Mary either !

Then one would have to explain as to whom is this Joseph in Luke's account ! If one contends that this Joseph is the husband of Mary, then Mary married her full brother, which is ridiculous.

So one would have to ask, as to why would this site promote such a false rendition ?

The geneology in Luke's account is not the king line. The generations listed in Matthew, shows the king line through Solomon. This is why it is imparative that one understands that this Joseph in Matthew is the father of Mary. This "man" (aner) of Mary, is her father.

 

[Packrat]

Heli is not the father of Mary either !

Then one would have to explain as to whom is this Joseph in Luke's account ! If one contends that this Joseph is the husband of Mary, then Mary married her full brother, which is ridiculous.

So one would have to ask, as to why would this site promote such a false rendition ?

The geneology in Luke's account is not the king line. The generations listed in Matthew, shows the king line through Solomon. This is why it is imparative that one understands that this Joseph in Matthew is the father of Mary. This "man" (aner) of Mary, is her father.

I did a little looking into this and I think that Matthew 1 may be Mary's genealogy. Confer 1 Chronicles 17:14. It's talking about Solomon or more broadly his lineage. If Jesus were not biologically related to Solomon through this genealogy I presume Jesus could be adopted into this line from Nathan's. But it seems more plausible at the moment that the genealogy in Matthew 1 is Jesus' biological lineage extending from Solomon (due to 1 Chronicles 17:14). It just *feels* that way. Call it a hunch based on the language used. I'd have to do a lot more looking into it before I decided anything, but definitely an interesting proposition.

 

[Packrat]

The first chapter of Matthew is --- not ---- a geneology ! Its --- generations ! :yes

I ran the numbers again. Matthew 1 has only 40 transitions (i.e. so-and-so the father of so-and-so). Luke 3 has 55 transitions. I think it would be difficult to adhere to the strict notion that every reference to "father of" or "son of" should be interpreted as such rather than as "ancestor of" or "descendant of" while still making the two genealogies match. However we understand the genealogies in the future I think it is becoming apparent that:

• Jeconiah/Jehoiakim is not the cursed king in the Old Testament.

• One genealogy is Mary's and the other is her husband's.

• The Matthew 1 genealogy may be Jesus' biological lineage in order to stick with 1 Chronicles 17:14 and thus the Joseph in it could not be Jesus' foster father but would have to have a blood relation to him (i.e. through Mary). Thus this Joseph would be - as it is suggested - Mary's father.

I still don't see how this affects Jesus' divinity. We see from Luke 1:34 that Mary is taken by surprise at the announcement of her pregnancy since she is still a self-professed virgin. Thus Jesus would have to be of more than human birth. Seems like I remember the Greek for "virgin" meaning either "young woman" or "virgin," but the context of this particular case clearly suggests the latter interpretation. It wouldn't make as much sense to say, "How can this be when I am a young woman?" Young women can still give birth. Virgins, more often than not, do not. :D Thus it would warrant more surprise and Mary's question would be contextually valid.

Fascinating stuff.

 

[Ashua]

The first chapter of Matthew is --- not ---- a geneology ! Its --- generations ! :yes

English semantics imposed over Greek words. Take a guess which word is translated generations

Genesis

) source, origin

a) a book of one's lineage, i.e. in which his ancestry or progeny are enumerated

2) used of birth, nativity

3) of that which follows origin, viz. existence, life

a) the wheel of life (Jas 3:6), other explain it, the wheel of human origin which as soon as men are born begins to run, i.e. its course of life

Did you know the New King James version uses the word genealogy there? I say it is interchangeable. They are synonyms.

 

[Vic C.]

Did you know the New King James version uses the word genealogy there? I say it is interchangeable. They are synonyms.

They sure are but arguing the point seemed futile at the time.

 

[francisdesales]

The first chapter of Matthew is --- not ---- a geneology ! Its --- generations ! :yes

English semantics imposed over Greek words. Take a guess which word is translated generations

Genesis

) source, origin

a) a book of one's lineage, i.e. in which his ancestry or progeny are enumerated

2) used of birth, nativity

3) of that which follows origin, viz. existence, life

a) the wheel of life (Jas 3:6), other explain it, the wheel of human origin which as soon as men are born begins to run, i.e. its course of life

Did you know the New King James version uses the word genealogy there? I say it is interchangeable. They are synonyms.

This isn't the first time he has pulled this sophistry by inventing distinctions that do not exist. Ask him to explain the difference between "Create" and "Make". Be wary of the cricket noises you'll hear while waiting.... Apparently, that is how Adam and Eve are different, in his mind, although he can't explain the difference beyond the spelling of the two words.

Sorry to say, you are just wasting your time with him.

 

[Mysteryman]

The first chapter of Matthew is --- not ---- a geneology ! Its --- generations ! :yes

English semantics imposed over Greek words. Take a guess which word is translated generations

Genesis

) source, origin

a) a book of one's lineage, i.e. in which his ancestry or progeny are enumerated

2) used of birth, nativity

3) of that which follows origin, viz. existence, life

a) the wheel of life (Jas 3:6), other explain it, the wheel of human origin which as soon as men are born begins to run, i.e. its course of life

Did you know the New King James version uses the word genealogy there? I say it is interchangeable. They are synonyms.

New King James version guilty as charged ! :yes

 

[Ashua]

I'm gonna assume the difference between create and make to you is that create is from NOTHING whilst make requires some sort of base material? Creation would be as God creating the universe while 'make' is how Eve was formed out of Adam's existing rib, or that Adam was formed out of the existing earth?

Technically he is right about that. I'm not sure what end he is trying to justify by the means, but the Hebrew does have a distinction

??????

Bara'

Translated: Create

1) to create, shape, form

a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)

1) of heaven and earth

2) of individual man

3) of new conditions and circumstances

4) of transformations

b) (Niphal) to be created

1) of heaven and earth

2) of birth

3) of something new

4) of miracles

c) (Piel)

1) to cut down

2) to cut out

2) to be fat

a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat

Examples:

In the beginning God BARA' the heaven and the earth.

So God BARA' man in his [own] image , in the image of God BARA' he him; male and female BARA' he them.

BARA' in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

That they may see , and know , and consider , and understand together, that the hand of the LORD hath done this, and the Holy One of Israel hath BARA' it.


Then we have this word:

??????
`asah

Translated as Make

1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make

a) (Qal)

1) to do, work, make, produce

a) to do

b) to work

c) to deal (with)

d) to act, act with effect, effect

2) to make

a) to make

b) to produce

c) to prepare

d) to make (an offering)

e) to attend to, put in order

f) to observe, celebrate

g) to acquire (property)

h) to appoint, ordain, institute

i) to bring about

j) to use

k) to spend, pass

b) (Niphal)

1) to be done

2) to be made

3) to be produced

4) to be offered

5) to be observed

6) to be used

c) (Pual) to be made

2) (Piel) to press, squeeze


And God430 'ASAH the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.

And Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king, and had neither dressed his feet, nor 'ASAH his beard, nor washed his clothes, from the day the king departed until the day he came [again] in peace

And God430 said , Let us 'ASUH man120 in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.



Did you catch that in my examples? Now, if this is what he is alluding to when he says Make and Create arent the same thing; then this is where he has a problem:

And God430 said , Let us 'ASUH man120 in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

The very next verse

So God BARA' man in his [own] image , in the image of God BARA' he him; male and female BARA' he them.


The author of Genesis 1 (Moses?) used the words interchangeably. There is no difference here. The word has connotations and variances as do English words, but ultimately; they are the same thing.

Mysteryman, what is the intent of accomplishment by drawing distinction between the words if I might ask?

 

[Physicist]

The first chapter of Matthew is --- not ---- a geneology ! Its --- generations ! :yes

I ran the numbers again. Matthew 1 has only 40 transitions (i.e. so-and-so the father of so-and-so). Luke 3 has 55 transitions. I think it would be difficult to adhere to the strict notion that every reference to "father of" or "son of" should be interpreted as such rather than as "ancestor of" or "descendant of" while still making the two genealogies match. However we understand the genealogies in the future I think it is becoming apparent that:

• Jeconiah/Jehoiakim is not the cursed king in the Old Testament.

• One genealogy is Mary's and the other is her husband's.

• The Matthew 1 genealogy may be Jesus' biological lineage in order to stick with 1 Chronicles 17:14 and thus the Joseph in it could not be Jesus' foster father but would have to have a blood relation to him (i.e. through Mary). Thus this Joseph would be - as it is suggested - Mary's father.

I still don't see how this affects Jesus' divinity. We see from Luke 1:34 that Mary is taken by surprise at the announcement of her pregnancy since she is still a self-professed virgin. Thus Jesus would have to be of more than human birth. Seems like I remember the Greek for "virgin" meaning either "young woman" or "virgin," but the context of this particular case clearly suggests the latter interpretation. It wouldn't make as much sense to say, "How can this be when I am a young woman?" Young women can still give birth. Virgins, more often than not, do not. :D Thus it would warrant more surprise and Mary's question would be contextually valid.

Fascinating stuff.

Both geneologies say Joseph and neither say Mary. Both gospel authors were giving the family tree of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Writing as they did at the end of the first century , they made up names for unknown ancestors such as the father of Joseph. Special pleading does not change these obvious conclusions. I fail to see the great importance of this discrepancy to the divinity of Jesus. Why does it matter if we don't know the name of Joseph's father?

 

[Ashua]

The Jews were exceptional record keepers. The genealogies were actually lost when the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. if memory serves. I have heard that one of the genealogies was through Joseph, while the other was through Mary--- that in those days women were not listed on genealogies. It was a patriarchal thing and it is entirely possible Mary and Joseph were of fairly close ancestry. I don't know any of this for a certainty though. Just thought I would offer that up for consideration.