Was Joseph Mary's Father?

[francisdesales]

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:


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.

Sorry to have side-tracked this thread by bringing make v create up. The words are used interchangeably in the bible, God creates and makes, which does not imply that when he "makes", He is necessarily constructing from pre-existent material. The point is that this is not the first time MM has done this, inventing a distinction that doesn't exist...

 

[Packrat]

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?

I seem to have heard that before. :D Perhaps from our last discussion on the subject? I think you'll find it a hard job to fit contradictions into gaps of information. It's like trying to mentally fit a square play block into a round hole. It may have been excusable in our infancy but is no more.

Within those gaps of information - if they're big enough - we could fit almost anything (some things more logical than others). My point is not so much that one genealogy refers to this or that but that there is no reason to posit contradiction within them. From what we have I can see three main possibilities and none of them have been proven false yet: 1.) Luke's refers to Mary's and Matthew's to Joseph's line, 2.) vice versa, 3.) they're contradictory. So you're welcome to your opinion and I will try to explore these avenues further, but you might as well be trying to fit a square peg in a round hole if you doggedly hold to any single theory given our current level of knowledge.

In conclusion, that you have said Matthew and Luke were written at the end of the first century (i.e. ca 70-100 AD) is a statement more befitting someone of your intelligence (cf. Luke 1:1-2) than the assumption that the authors of these books, writing with genealogical records at their disposal, would so easily muddy the civil records of the past. The argument that they purposely tried to deify Christ when they had evidence to the contrary lacks both evidence and motive. There would be no need to deify Christ or to point to his right of succession except to sustain the truth of the Scriptures by the Messianic prophecies (e.g. some had to be fulfilled during Jesus' day; otherwise they would become suspect; in fact some Jews believe in multiple Messiahs and acknowledge Jesus as one because of the prophecies). Writing fabulous tales about a dead man, whom you once loved, would do nothing to bring him back.

 

[Mysteryman]

First lets clear something up for all the readers who are keeping up with this thread.

The name Jeconiah is Jechonias in Matt. 1:11. The name Jeconiah comes from I Chronicles 3:16. However, the name Jeconiah is Jehoiachin in II Kings 24:6. You will come to this conclusion by doing a word/name study.

Josiah is not the father of Jeconiah/Jehoachin. Josiah is the grandfather of Jeconiah/Jehoiachin, not his father. Jehoiakim is the father of (Jeconiah/Jehoiachin).

Also, Jeconiah/Jehoiachin is -- Coniah in Jeremiah 22:24 and in verse 28, this Coniah is exactly the same person - Jeconiah/Jehoiachin/Coniah/Jechonias. Thats right, four different names rendered for the exact same person.

(see next post as well)
Bless - MM

 

[Mysteryman]

Continuing on from my previous post to Ashua ---

The Mystery (secret) of Matt. 1:11 is now going to be explained, so read carefully please.

In Matt. 1:11 Josias (Josiah) is not the father of Jechonias/Jeconiah/Jehoiachin/Coniah, he is the grandfather of Jechonias/Jeconiah/Jehoiachin/Coniah.

So why does Matt. 1:11 say - Josias begat Jechonias ? Knowing full well, that he is his grandfather and not his father !

The answer is in Jeremiah 22:30

Verse 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"

Which Man is this verse talking about ?

In II Kings chapter 23 and in verses 29 and 30 the death of King Josiah occured. From that point on a KIng was appointed instead of being anointed as King. The son of Josiah (Jehoahaz/Johanan), after his father's death, was appointed by the people - II Kings 23:30. In II Kings 23:33 , Pharaoh-ne'-choh put him in bonds, so that he would not reign in Jerusalem.

Then in II Kings 23:34 this same Pharaoh "made" Eliakim the son of Josiah king instead of his father Josiah. In reading verse 34 you will notice that this same Pharaoh changed his name to - Jehoiakim, who is the father of Jehoiachin/Jechoniah/Jeconias/Coniah. Jehoiakim died, and Jehoiachin reigned in his stead. By the way, all of them did evil in the sight of God , Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim, as well as his son Jehoiachin.

In Jeremiah 22:30 , this "Man" was Josiah, who was to be considered - "childless", and this is why the generations/genealogy list in Matt. chapter one and in verse 11 jumps over the four sons of Josias/Josiah in verse 11. He was to be considered childless. This is why Josias/Josiah begat Jechonias/Jechoiachin/Jeconiah/Coniah, his grandson.

So Josias begat Jechonias about the time they were carried away to Babylon, and in verse 17 it is the word - "until" the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations. So --- Jechonias was one of the 14 generations in the second list from David until the carrying away into Babylon.

I pray this has been an educational blessing.

Bless , IN Christ - MM

 

[Physicist]

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.

The point I was making was that the claim of one geneology through Mary and one through Joseph does not match the texts. Both say Joseph. If we had only one geneology, either Matthew or Luke, no one would claim that it applied to Mary, not Joseph. It is because we have two conflicting geneologies that Apologists claim that one (some say Matthew and some say Luke) actually applies to Mary.This is a classic case of 'special pleading'. Special Pleading is a formal logical fallacy where a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency. Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules. We have two geneologies that list Joseph but not Mary. The Apologists makes the special plea to apply one of them to Mary.

 

[Packrat]

Continuing on from my previous post to Ashua ---

The Mystery (secret) of Matt. 1:11 is now going to be explained, so read carefully please.

In Matt. 1:11 Josias (Josiah) is not the father of Jechonias/Jeconiah/Jehoiachin/Coniah, he is the grandfather of Jechonias/Jeconiah/Jehoiachin/Coniah.

So why does Matt. 1:11 say - Josias begat Jechonias ? Knowing full well, that he is his grandfather and not his father !

The answer is in Jeremiah 22:30

Verse 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"

Which Man is this verse talking about ?

In II Kings chapter 23 and in verses 29 and 30 the death of King Josiah occured. From that point on a KIng was appointed instead of being anointed as King. The son of Josiah (Jehoahaz/Johanan), after his father's death, was appointed by the people - II Kings 23:30. In II Kings 23:33 , Pharaoh-ne'-choh put him in bonds, so that he would not reign in Jerusalem.

Then in II Kings 23:34 this same Pharaoh "made" Eliakim the son of Josiah king instead of his father Josiah. In reading verse 34 you will notice that this same Pharaoh changed his name to - Jehoiakim, who is the father of Jehoiachin/Jechoniah/Jeconias/Coniah. Jehoiakim died, and Jehoiachin reigned in his stead. By the way, all of them did evil in the sight of God , Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim, as well as his son Jehoiachin.

In Jeremiah 22:30 , this "Man" was Josiah, who was to be considered - "childless", and this is why the generations/genealogy list in Matt. chapter one and in verse 11 jumps over the four sons of Josias/Josiah in verse 11. He was to be considered childless. This is why Josias/Josiah begat Jechonias/Jechoiachin/Jeconiah/Coniah, his grandson.

So Josias begat Jechonias about the time they were carried away to Babylon, and in verse 17 it is the word - "until" the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations. So --- Jechonias was one of the 14 generations in the second list from David until the carrying away into Babylon.

I pray this has been an educational blessing.

Bless , IN Christ - MM

So let's see if I understand this all. You're saying the genealogy should look like: Josiah > Eliakim/Jehoiakim > Jeconiah? And your claim is that Josiah is the one who was to appear childless instead of Jeconiah? But Jeremiah 22:28-30 says that Coniah (i.e. Jeconiah) would be the one to appear childless - not Josiah as you suggest. Very nice background work, but I'm still at a loss as to why you believe this.

So you're claiming that because Josiah was supposed to be listed as childless (and it makes no such claim in Jeremiah) that is why in Matthew that Josiah is listed as the sole ancestor to Jeconiah and that Jehoiakim is not listed, being Josiah's child? Disregarding your first claim the second doesn't quite make sense either. While Josiah's child is indeed not listed (and thus technically speaking he could be considered childless) he is still written down in the genealogies as having children (because he "begat" Jeconiah instead). However, Jeconiah (whom Jeremiah says shall be listed as childless) is listed as having children in the Jesus genealogies. Does this then make him the same cursed Jeconiah? Not really. It actually drives a wedge between the two Jeconiahs even further.

Also "none of his seed" reigning on the throne could mean either his immediate seed or his seed through the generations (I would assume). I had taken it to mean that none of his descendants would reign on the throne. Ever. I got that impression from the command to "write him as childless." If he had no children then none of his descendants would be able to reign on the throne because he would have no descendants.

I see that in Luke 3 Zerubbabel has Shealtiel as his father and Neri is the father of Shealtiel. In Matthew 1 Zerubbabel has Shealtiel as his father and Jeconiah is the father of Shealtiel. That doesn't appear to be the same person. Wouldn't it be alright to assume that these Shealtiels and Zerubbabels are not the same individuals mentioned in the Old Testament? How can Neri and Jeconiah be the fathers of Shealtiel if he's the same person unless it's through levirate marriage? But even levirate marriage would make Jeconiah rather than Neri the likely candidate for Shealtiel's biological father. If Jeconiah is the cursed one (as Jeremiah suggests) and "none of his seed" means "none of his descendants" as well rather than "none of his immediate children" then this would make the line from Jeconiah > Shealtiel > Zerubbabel the cursed line. And keep in mind that the biological line, if we're talking about levirate marriage, had to be through Jeconiah rather than Neri. So this biological line is the same as the cursed line and that's no good, is it? Besides, the genealogies, though appearing condensed, give no hint that the Shealtiel of Neri is the same Shealtiel of Jeconiah. They appear to be two separate people minus similarities in the names of a couple of their descendants.

 

[Mysteryman]

Continuing on from my previous post to Ashua ---

The Mystery (secret) of Matt. 1:11 is now going to be explained, so read carefully please.

In Matt. 1:11 Josias (Josiah) is not the father of Jechonias/Jeconiah/Jehoiachin/Coniah, he is the grandfather of Jechonias/Jeconiah/Jehoiachin/Coniah.

So why does Matt. 1:11 say - Josias begat Jechonias ? Knowing full well, that he is his grandfather and not his father !

The answer is in Jeremiah 22:30

Verse 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"

Which Man is this verse talking about ?

In II Kings chapter 23 and in verses 29 and 30 the death of King Josiah occured. From that point on a KIng was appointed instead of being anointed as King. The son of Josiah (Jehoahaz/Johanan), after his father's death, was appointed by the people - II Kings 23:30. In II Kings 23:33 , Pharaoh-ne'-choh put him in bonds, so that he would not reign in Jerusalem.

Then in II Kings 23:34 this same Pharaoh "made" Eliakim the son of Josiah king instead of his father Josiah. In reading verse 34 you will notice that this same Pharaoh changed his name to - Jehoiakim, who is the father of Jehoiachin/Jechoniah/Jeconias/Coniah. Jehoiakim died, and Jehoiachin reigned in his stead. By the way, all of them did evil in the sight of God , Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim, as well as his son Jehoiachin.

In Jeremiah 22:30 , this "Man" was Josiah, who was to be considered - "childless", and this is why the generations/genealogy list in Matt. chapter one and in verse 11 jumps over the four sons of Josias/Josiah in verse 11. He was to be considered childless. This is why Josias/Josiah begat Jechonias/Jechoiachin/Jeconiah/Coniah, his grandson.

So Josias begat Jechonias about the time they were carried away to Babylon, and in verse 17 it is the word - "until" the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations. So --- Jechonias was one of the 14 generations in the second list from David until the carrying away into Babylon.

I pray this has been an educational blessing.

Bless , IN Christ - MM

So let's see if I understand this all. You're saying the genealogy should look like: Josiah > Eliakim/Jehoiakim > Jeconiah? And your claim is that Josiah is the one who was to appear childless instead of Jeconiah? But Jeremiah 22:28-30 says that Coniah (i.e. Jeconiah) would be the one to appear childless - not Josiah as you suggest. Very nice background work, but I'm still at a loss as to why you believe this.

So you're claiming that because Josiah was supposed to be listed as childless (and it makes no such claim in Jeremiah) that is why in Matthew that Josiah is listed as the sole ancestor to Jeconiah and that Jehoiakim is not listed, being Josiah's child? Disregarding your first claim the second doesn't quite make sense either. While Josiah's child is indeed not listed (and thus technically speaking he could be considered childless) he is still written down in the genealogies as having children (because he "begat" Jeconiah instead). However, Jeconiah (whom Jeremiah says shall be listed as childless) is listed as having children in the Jesus genealogies. Does this then make him the same cursed Jeconiah? Not really. It actually drives a wedge between the two Jeconiahs even further.

Also "none of his seed" reigning on the throne could mean either his immediate seed or his seed through the generations (I would assume). I had taken it to mean that none of his descendants would reign on the throne. Ever. I got that impression from the command to "write him as childless." If he had no children then none of his descendants would be able to reign on the throne because he would have no descendants.

I see that in Luke 3 Zerubbabel has Shealtiel as his father and Neri is the father of Shealtiel. In Matthew 1 Zerubbabel has Shealtiel as his father and Jeconiah is the father of Shealtiel. That doesn't appear to be the same person. Wouldn't it be alright to assume that these Shealtiels and Zerubbabels are not the same individuals mentioned in the Old Testament? How can Neri and Jeconiah be the fathers of Shealtiel if he's the same person unless it's through levirate marriage? But even levirate marriage would make Jeconiah rather than Neri the likely candidate for Shealtiel's biological father. If Jeconiah is the cursed one (as Jeremiah suggests) and "none of his seed" means "none of his descendants" as well rather than "none of his immediate children" then this would make the line from Jeconiah > Shealtiel > Zerubbabel the cursed line. And keep in mind that the biological line, if we're talking about levirate marriage, had to be through Jeconiah rather than Neri. So this biological line is the same as the cursed line and that's no good, is it? Besides, the genealogies, though appearing condensed, give no hint that the Shealtiel of Neri is the same Shealtiel of Jeconiah. They appear to be two separate people minus similarities in the names of a couple of their descendants.

Hi

Jeremiah 22:30 does not mention anyone's name. To consider this man childles is key to the understanding. Put all the pieces of the puzzle together and this "man" could only be Josiah that is being spoken about in this verse ! Quote verse 30 - "for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah"

This is talking about "this man's seed" =offspring. Thus his genealogy/generation line ended with the direct descendant of Josiah. This is why it skips over any of Josiah's sons, and this is why it tells us in Matthew chapter one and in verse 11 that Josias (Josiah) begat Jechonias ( Jehoiachin ).

Josias was the grandfather of Jechonias ( Jeoiachin ), not his father !!

 

[Packrat]

Jeremiah 22:30 does not mention anyone's name.

However Jeremiah 22:28 does. It talks about Jehoiachin and then goes on to say, "Record this man as if childless [...]" What other man could it be? You once said:

However, the name Jeconiah is Jehoiachin in II Kings 24:6.

If Jeconiah translates into Jehoiachin, then Jeremiah 22 must be talking about Jeconiah as being childless and being the cursed one.

 

[Mysteryman]

Jeremiah 22:30 does not mention anyone's name.

However Jeremiah 22:28 does. It talks about Jehoiachin and then goes on to say, "Record this man as if childless [...]" What other man could it be? You once said:

However, the name Jeconiah is Jehoiachin in II Kings 24:6.

If Jeconiah translates into Jehoiachin, then Jeremiah 22 must be talking about Jeconiah as being childless and being the cursed one.

Hi

Here is the problem I see --> You are not reading verse 30 correctly. In verse 30 it specifically states, that no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David. If it were talking about Coniah/Jehoiachin, it would not make any sense, because none of Coniah/Jehoiachin seed ever sat upon the throne of David. But Josiah seed did ! Of which Jehoiakim , the father of Jehoiachin, both were of the seed of Josiah. So you see, this means that verse 30 is not talking about Coniah/Jehoiachin ! It is talking about Josiah, the grandfather of Jehoiachin. It then becomes a matter of elimination.

 

[Mysteryman]

What ever happened to everyone, who was at one point a part of this conversation ? ?

In Christ - MM