Why Are Jesus’ Genealogies in Matthew and Luke Different?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 окт 2024
- The birth narratives in both Matthew and Luke help answer the question, “Who is Jesus and where did he come from?” One of the ways each book does this is by recounting Jesus’ genealogy.
The problem is: the genealogies are different.
The Old Testament predicted that the Messiah would come from the line of David. Both Matthew and Luke provide genealogies of Jesus that confirm he was a descendant of David-therefore, a legitimate Messiah. He was a legitimate claimant to the throne of Israel.
But they differ in an important way: Matthew follows the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke follows the line of Nathan, another Son of David. The end result is two distinct genealogies.
How do we account for this?
Some argue that either Matthew or Luke got it wrong. They created or borrowed a genealogy in order to provide Jesus with a legitimate ancestry. Or they accuse later Christians for artificially creating a genealogy to provide Jesus with a Davidic lineage after the fact.
Yet there are three other possible explanations for the two different genealogies.
***
Learn more in Mark Strauss's online course: courses.zonder...
There are two records in the Bible of the genealogy of Jesus Christ. One is in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 1; the other is in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 3 (Both are listed below). Matthew's account traces the line of descent from Abraham to Jesus, while Luke's account follows the ancestry from Adam to Jesus. Quite a few differences and discrepancy exist between the two records. Most startling is that from King David to Jesus, the lineages are entirely different.
Key Differences
Matthew's account traces the lineage from Abraham to Jesus (41 generations), while Luke records the ancestry from Adam to Jesus (76 generations).
Matthew's genealogy is condensed and divided into three groups of 14, representing a movement through three time periods. The first group lists the patriarchs, the second names the kings, and the third contains private citizens. The intent was not to give a strict record, but rather, present the historical progression. It begins by highlighting the family origin, then the rise to power through the Davidic throne, and eventually the decline from royalty to the humble birth of the promised Messiah.
Luke's account is unusual in that it begins with Jesus and progresses backward through history, rather than following the order of chronological succession. Some suggest that Luke's purpose in presenting a "regression" was to magnify attention on Jesus.
Though nearly identical from Abraham to David, the two accounts are entirely different from David to Jesus. After David, only the names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel appear on both lists.
Throughout the ages, scholars have pondered and argued the reasons for the conflicting genealogies of Matthew and Luke, particularly since Jewish scribes were known for their precise and detailed record keeping. Skeptics are usually quick to attribute these differences to biblical errors.
Theories for the Differing Accounts
According to one of the oldest theories, some scholars assign the differences in genealogies to the "Levirate marriage" tradition. This custom said that if a man died without bearing any sons, his brother could then marry his widow, and their sons would carry on the dead man's name. For this theory to hold up, it would mean that Joseph, the father of Jesus, had both a legal father (Heli) and a biological father (Jacob), through a Levirate marriage. The theory suggests that Joseph's grandfathers (Matthan according to Matthew; Matthat according to Luke) were brothers, both married to the same woman, one after the other. This would make Matthan's son (Jacob) Joseph's biological father, and Matthat's son (Heli) Joseph's legal father. Matthew's account would trace Jesus' primary (biological) lineage, and Luke's record would follow Jesus' legal lineage.
An alternative theory with very little acceptance among theologians and historians alike proposes that Jacob and Heli are actually one and the same.
One of the most widely held theories suggests that Matthew's account follows the lineage of Joseph, while Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, the mother of Jesus. This interpretation would mean that Jacob was Joseph's biological father, and Heli (Mary's biological father) became Joseph's surrogate father, thus making Joseph Heli's heir through his marriage to Mary. If Heli had no sons, this would have been the normal custom. Also, if Mary and Joseph lived under the same roof with Heli, his "son-in-law" would have been called "son" and considered a descendant. Although it would have been unusual to trace a genealogy from the maternal side, there was nothing usual about the virgin birth. Additionally, if Mary (Jesus' blood relative) were indeed a direct descendant of David, this would make her son "the seed of David" in keeping with Messianic prophecies.
There are other more complicated theories, and with each, there seems to remain an unresolvable problem. However, in both genealogies we do see that Jesus is a descendant of King David, qualifying him, according to Messianic prophecies, as the Messiah.
One interesting commentary points out that by beginning with Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, Matthew's genealogy shows the relationship of Jesus to all Jews-he is their Messiah. This coincides with the overarching theme and purpose of the book of Matthew-to prove that Jesus is the Messiah.
On the other hand, the overriding purpose of the book of Luke is to give a precise record of the life of Christ as the perfect human Savior. Therefore, the genealogy of Luke traces all the way back to Adam, demonstrating the relationship of Jesus to all of mankind-he is the Savior of the world.
Women in the Genealogy of Jesus
Five noteworthy women are included in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary. Their inclusion has been a source of continuous debate. Jeromesuggested that these women were included because they were sinners, foreshadowing Jesus as the Savior of sinful humans. Martin Luther thought they were included because they were Gentiles, showing that the Messiah extended his blessings beyond Israel. Their unique, controversial, and unexpected stories could explain another possibility for their inclusion. Or it may have been to counter Jewish criticism regarding the legitimacy of Jesus’ birth. Irregular unions did not disqualify the Messiah’s legal ancestry.
Matthew's Genealogy of Jesus
Matthew 1:1-17: From Abraham to Jesus
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Judah
Perez (whose mother was Tamar)
Hezron
Ram
Amminadab
Nahshon
Salmon
Boaz (whose mother was Rahab)
Obed (whose mother was Ruth)
Jesse
David
Solomon (whose mother was Bathsheba)
Rehoboam
Abijah
Asa
Jehoshaphat
Johoram
Uzziah
Jotham
Ahaz
Hezekiah
Manasseh
Amon
Josiah
Jeconiah
Shealtiel
Zerubbabel
Abiud
Eliakim
Azor
Zadok
Achim
Eliud
Eleazer
Matthan
Jacob
Joseph (the husband of Mary)
Jesus
Luke's Genealogy of Jesus
Luke 3:23-37: From Adam to Jesus*
*Although listed here in chronological succession, the actual account appears in reverse order.
**Some manuscripts differ here, omitting Ram, listing Amminadab as the son of Admin, the son of Arni.
Adam
Seth
Enosh
Kenan
Mahalaleel
Jared
Enoch
Methuselah
Lamech
Noah
Shem
Arphaxad
Cainan
Shelah
Eber
Peleg
Reu
Serug
Nahor
Terah
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Judah
Perez
Hezron
Ram**
Amminadab
Nahshon
Salmon
Boaz
Obed
Jesse
David
Nathan
Mattatha
Menna
Melea
Eliakim
Jonam
Joseph
Judah
Simeon
Levi
Matthat
Jorim
Eliezer
Joshua
Er
Elmadam
Cosam
Addi
Melki
Neri
Shealtiel
Zerubbabel
Rhesa
Joanan
Joda
Josech
Semein
Mattathias
Maath
Naggai
Esli
Nahum
Amos
Mattathias
Joseph
Jannai
Melki
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph
Jesus
Key Takeaways
Matthew's genealogy traced Jesus' royal pedigree because the Gospel's central purpose was to prove that Jesus was the promised Messiah.
Luke's genealogy traced Jesus' relationship to all of humankind because the Gospel's central purpose was to prove that Jesus was the Savior of the world.
this is so helpful!! thank you for taking the time to write this all out :)
Thank you for this helpful comment.
Thanks I come across to your genealogy, am going to see it. too
False Information..
@@dcomminc7381 why?
If the throne of David did not truly belong to Jesus there would’ve been no need to crucify Him because the genealogies would have disqualified Him. Just because we can’t wrap our finite mind around all of it doesn’t mean it’s not true.
That's because Jews mistook Jesus as earthly king, whereas Jesus had clearly said his kingdom is not of this earth.
@@magatism that’s irrelevant to the topic…
@@jerusalem5646 How dumbo.
They still would have because he claimed to be God and the messiah. This video is also a poor explanation, but the one about being a man's son (adoptive) makes sense.
I was reading through many of the comments listed below. It brings me so much sadness to see how divided us Christians are, when we are called to uplift, support, constructively correct (not scrutinize) each other, love, speak truth, and ultimately be the example of Christ's love for all who will see and hear. How divided can we be on this? If its recorded in the Bible, both genealogies, are HOLY and breathed upon by God! I have listened to the video and thought about the listed possibilities. Yes, ultimately there are things beyond our earthly understanding and we will have to ask Jesus ourselves once we see him in heaven. We must have faith that God's word is ONLY TRUTH. God's Holy Word, the Bible, is never contradictive or wrong. He will never lead us astray. Both of the genealogies are listed to in order for us to grasp a deeper understanding of God and his son, Jesus Christ our Savior. We are not supposed to get wrapped up in trying to "dissect" the genealogies of the Bible. God is infinite, and since the fall of man, He provided a way for us to be saved. God proved this by giving us a CONCRETE list names; a list of people He used to show us how his Holy plan to save us came to fruition with Jesus.
God FORBID we doubt Him now in these Helatious times, when this world needs Him most. Shame on all of us.
In the end of my comment, I would like to thank my brothers and sisters in Christ who made and posted this video. I truly believe that you love Jesus so much, you wish to explain the legitimacy of Jesus's lineage in the bible to all who watch this video. You have gotten much spiritual warfare because of your efforts. Your explanations are possibilities, and I also believe that God is the only one who has the answer to why He listed 2 genealogies of Jesus in His Holy Word. I have faith that all things are possible with God.
Right now I'm praying for you all, those saved and unsaved.
Wow..
GOD bless you!🙏🙏❤
lol
We knew David from old testament had two sons: Nathan and Solomon
In luke the genealogy says that jesus is related to king David through his son Nathan
While in Matthew the genealogy says that jesus is related to king David through his son Solmon
So how could Jesus be traced back to both Nathan and Solomon at the same branch of the tree? Are you people stupid?
@@sonofkemet6955 man!!! U r soo stupid to misunderstand the meaning of those lines..these misunderstandings lead u to disbelieve in Christianity..sad!
For example,just think that y and z are two sons of x...and u as son of y...even then,z can also consider his brother's son as his own son...which happens in our daily life too...
And in mathew 1:1 " this is the record of genealogy of Jesus, the son of David, the son of abraham"
Does this mean that jesus is born to David??absolutely No!!..they are from same descendants ..so they r written in that way.....
@@sonofkemet6955 Correct: that is impossible, one of the two is 100% wrong. Even Jesus can not explain that.
An overlooked word in Luke's narrative could unlock the mystery
In Matthew it states that Jacob was the father of Joseph.
In Luke, it states that Jesus was "known" as the son of Joseph . In some translations the word is "supposed."
To me this signifies that Luke's account is Mary's geneology, written in a way to differentiate between the two genealogies ,as the mother was not included in birth registration.
We knew David from old testament had two sons: Nathan and Solomon
In luke the genealogy says that jesus is related to king David through his son Nathan
While in Matthew the genealogy says that jesus is related to king David through his son Solmon
So how could Jesus be traced back to both Nathan and Solomon at the same branch of the tree? Are you people stupid?
@@SSmith-dn9ib Because Joseph was of BOTH their lines. He represented Heli's son. And Jacob's son. It was one representative dmfrom each family. As the Son of Heli he was the CLOSEST reperesentive or sucession.
@@sonofkemet6955 NOPE, It says in Matthew 1 that Jacob was the father of Joseph and in Luke it says that Heli is the father of Joseph. HELI IS THE FATHER IN LAW OF Joseph. Making Mary and Joseph cousin. Now tell me do your cousins match perfectly in your line? The Bible is correct. They did not have in law titles back then. Matthan was Grandfather to both Mary and Joseph. Look at Jacob and Esau's line. Jacob fled his family and went to his Uncle's house. He married TWOof his Cousins Leah and Rachel.
RIGHT!
To me that says nothing about Mary, rather you are adding your own bias to the text. Read the text for what it is, do not add your own words to it. Jesus was born from a virgin mother in both accounts, so ''the supposed father'' claim would be correct for both texts. But what are you then saying Matthew is writing about? If you mention that Joseph was not his real father, therefore Luke is about Mary, then what is Matthew about? Who is it about? You can't change your standards to satisfy your agenda.
Psalms 87:4-6:"I will make mention of RAHAB and Babylon to THOSE WHO KNOW ME; behold, O Philistia and Tyre, with Ethiopia; this one was born there." Whether Jesus had two different genealogies or seven, it shouldn't make too much difference. It's possible that maybe the differences are outlining His two different " parents" since Luke says, "As it was SUPPOSED" in reference to being Joseph's son. But it's enough for me that in Psalms 87 it appears to be another prophecy regarding the Messiah by mentioning RAHAB- both in Psalms and in Matthew's genealogy. And in Psalms it also clearly says He will mention RAHAB to THOSE WHO KNOW ME. Matthew's genealogy was inspired by the Holy Spirit to mention RAHAB. Luke's genealogy was inspired by the Holy Spirit to " write an ORDERLY account" ( Luke 1:3) and that's what he did. Simple.
The line branched out through David's two sons, Solomon and Nathan but united through Neri's son, Shealtiel, because king Jeconiah married Neri's wife after his death, and thus, Shealtiel was adopted as his son to avert the curse against him that no one from his line will sit again on the throne of David.
Then the line separated again by the two sons of Zerubbabel, Abiud and Rhesa, the ancestors of Jacob and Heli, fathers of Joseph husbans of Mary.
Jacob married the wife of dead Heli and adopted Joseph as his son. Joseph found Mary who is also a descendant of David and married her.
This is the best explanation I think though I have no other supporting evidence. But my theory is based on the facts written in the Bible.
Josh Walling Lineage comes from the loins of the man and Ruth was an Israelite.
@@yurhomi4478 So if a man has no sons but many daughters, and no granddaughters but many grandsons, then his lineage is lost, and he might as well have died childless... ?
Joseph's Geneology plays "absolutely no role", as Joseph was not Christ's father!
It play a role of showing the corruption of bible
@@bluellamaslearnbeyondthele2456 Matthew was not even a Jew hence adpotion is Roman thing not Hebrew. Christians exposed again.
We knew David from old testament had two sons: Nathan and Solomon
In luke the genealogy says that jesus is related to king David through his son Nathan
While in Matthew the genealogy says that jesus is related to king David through his son Solmon
So how could Jesus be traced back to both Nathan and Solomon at the same branch of the tree? Are you people stupid?
@@sonofkemet6955 dude, the only genealogy that counts is that if Matthew. Joseph was also the name of the father of Mary, but it's mistaken for her husband there.
@@فعالياتُنا-ت4ه it doesn't
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith.
1 Timothy 1:3-4
Paul is not referring to our Lord’s genealogy in 1 Timothy 1:3-4, unless you want to condemn St. Matthew and St. Luke for including a genealogy in their Gospels. Also Christ is no myth, as Paul writes of in this verse. Paul is instead speaking out against mythological figures in pagan religions who are said to be descendants of kings and gods and savior figures. The genealogy of our Lord is no small matter, as if he is not a descendant of David he is not Messiah, and if He is a descendant of David He is Messiah.
@@Thebibleguy96 Amen! People use that verse from Timothy out of context
Sure mate, boooo complicated stuff. Throw out the brain too.
We knew David from old testament had two sons: Nathan and Solomon
In luke the genealogy says that jesus is related to king David through his son Nathan
While in Matthew the genealogy says that jesus is related to king David through his son Solmon
So how could Jesus be traced back to both Nathan and Solomon at the same branch of the tree? Are you people stupid?
@@Thebibleguy96 right!
Another possible simple explanation is: Luke has Joseph's lineage and Matthew has Mary's.
In Matt. 1.16, the Greek word "aner" is a generic word for man/male, and can be translated as either husband or father. If we translate it father, that gives us 14 generations like Matt. 1.17 says, instead of 13.
1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
That book is a forgery, Paul did not write it.
4 Raeq 8:3-83a They that spout isolated bits of the Bible rather than engage in rational dialogue - wastes of space they are, for thus it is written and so it must be shall. (SBSRFAOPOT)
Or it could just be that one of the writers made a mistake. 🤔
A plausible theory. I wonder why the guy in the video missed it. Seemed to be in his blind spot
But it's God's word
@@rainythoughts4832 says who
@@redmattuk the Bible aka circular reasoning
irony~🗿
Matthew & Luke's geneologies do not conflict or contradict. They are of 2 people, Joseph & Mary. The genological list in Matthew, from David to Jacob-Heli (spanning about 1000 years), contains 27 generations of 40 years each, so as to comply with the 40 year royal generational standard. Luke, on the other hand, gives 40 generations at a more comprehensible 25 years each. Hence, Luke places Jesus in the 20th generation from Zerubbabel, whereas, Matrhew places him in the 11th generation. SUMMARY: Matthew--27 generations of 40 years from Solomon. Patriarchal--Zerubbabel's father's line. Luke--40 generations of 25 years from Nathan. Matriarchal--Zerubbabel's mother's line. Both Solomon & Nathan are sons of David. Both lines converge at Zerubbabel, then diverge. Zerubbabel had 2 sons, Abiud & Rhesa. Matthew goes from Abiud, Mary's line. Luke goes from Rhesa, Joseph's line. Also, Mary & Joseph were related; Joseph was Mary's great-aunt Gadat's son.///Matthew & Luke are telling the same story about the birth of Jesus. Matthew is telling the story of his actual physical birth into the world (Sunday, March 1, 7BC).. Luke is telling the story of Jesus' 2d 'birth' into the community. This was in 6AD, when Jesus was 12 years old. A boy whwn he was 12 years old went through a ceremony equivalent to the Orthodox Bar Mitzvah, when he was formally separated from his mother.
S
I do not understand how the Genealogi of Jesus could be to David Through Joseph,? Joseph was not his father,,,
@Josh Walling - Yes, the lineage of joseph is cursed, but jesus is not biological decendant to that line as he is not biological son of joseph according to the same geneology in Mathhew, while he have a second geneology in Luke that relates him to david without taking part in the curse...
Dawn of the Rainbow
- True, but since jesus have no father at all, and marry was engaged to joseph before she became pregnant with jesus, joseph is the only rightfull earthly father and heritage of jesus
@Josh Walling Just the title Jesus "Christ" alone shows that He is the Messiah. God bless you and Jesus loves you my friend!
1 John 5:1-3 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
@@GrGal cool
@@GrGal very cool
This line is of Mary. Because anyone who descends from David can be called son of David (as Jesus is called). However, the phrase "House of David '' is only reserved for those who belong to the Kingly line traced through Solomon and not Nathan. Luke says, "Joseph, of the house of David'' denoting that he belongs to the kingly line, and not this line denoted by Luke which is traced through Nathan. Nathan is the son of David, but not of the house of David (Kingly lineage). This is why Luke writes "God will give Jesus the throne of his father David". David can be Jesus' father(ancestor) thru Mary, but Jesus receives the throne through the lineage of one who belongs to the house(royal line) of David. It's beyond me why everyone misses this in the bible. No descendant outside of the royal line is called "of the house of David '', title only reserved for those who actually belong to the kingly line, which Mathew records. Look it up in the Tanakh and you'll see I am correct in this. Why would the prophet make a distinction between the house of David and the house of Nathan(son of David). Its because the title house of Devid is reserved for those who belong to the royal line, as Joseph was based on Mathew, confirmed by Luke when he wrote "Joseph, of the house of David". Nathan was not of the house of David (Royal line).
The land shall mourn, each family by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves;
Zechariah 12:12 ESV
Their thrones for judgment were set, the thrones of the house of David.
Psalm 122:5 ESV
Ehum, Joseph is not Jesus biological father, just can’t put it simpler than that.
Thank you.
Yep
Amen 🙏 🙏 🙏 They can't make a simple
Please explain how the first one is possible at all considering both genealogies end with Joseph and neither end with Mary? Thank you.
Merissa Makes Stuff I understand what you are saying Jesus wasn’t blood relatives to the line
But the reason they only recorded the male side
It’s cause woman talk to much.
It was Jewish Tradition to only mention men's names in genealogies
@@KappaHunter Thats not true because Ruth married Boaz to continue there lineage which they gave birth to Obed.
Merissa Makes Stuff - The answer is that there was no word in common Greek for "son in law," so Joseph is called the "son" of Heli through marriage to Mary. This is Mary's genealogy. The last paragraph here gives a good explanation. www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-genealogy.html
The answer to the question why there are two different genealogies of Jesus is that there were two different Jesus children (as well as two Josephs and Marys). Compare Matthew and Luke more thoroughly and you will realize there are many more differences. Pretty much all of them can be explained by this answer. More elaborate explanation can be found in the lectures of Rudolf Steiner on the Luke's gospel.
Rhe geneologies in Matthew and Luke are 2 people, Joseph & Mary. They do not contradict nor conflict. The genealogical list in Matthew, from David to Jacob-Heli (spanning about 1000 years), contains 27 generations of 40 years each, so as to comply with the 40-year royal genera5ional standard. Luke, on the other hand, gives 40 generations at a more comprehensible 25 years each. Hence, Luke places Jesus in the 20th generation from Zerubbabel, whereas Matthew places him in the 11th generation from Zerubbabel. SUMMARY: Matthew--27 generations of 40 years. From Solomon. Patriarchal---Zerubbabel's father's line. Luke---40 generationsof 25 years. From Nathan. Matriarchal--Zerubbabel's mother's line. Both Solomon & Nathan are sons of David. The 2 lines converge at Zerubbabel, then diverge. Zerubbabel had 2 sons, Abiud and Rhesa. Matthew goes from Abiud---Mary's line. Luke goes from Rhesa---Joesph's line. Joseph and Mary were also related. Joseph was Mary's great-aunt Gadat's son. Mary's mother was Hannah. Her father was Joachim (Yonakhir), the Elias Patriarch. Joseph's mother was Gadat. His father was Heli, the Jacob Patriarch. His title was Jacob, so he would be called Jacob-Heli. Joachim's mother was Sabartia (Sabhrath). His father was Matthat the Zadok. Heli's father was Matthan (descended from Mattathias (Tobias), the Temple governor. This should clear up the confusion.
I noticed that it says that there are a total of 32 generations from Abraham to Jesus in the book of Matthew. But it doesn't have that many. Can you explain that?
In Matthew 1:16 if the word “husband” was originally “father,” then the following verse would add up to 3 sets of 14 generations, otherwise it would only be 13 generations if we want the numbers to add up
He is pretending and adding things from himself.
Genealogy of someone is considered to be his complete ID of where he came from and who is his progeny. You can't bring in somebody else who's not the father involved in the genealogy even he is the Foster father.
Jesus has a mother and does not have father.
So stop confusing people and tell them the truth.
According to the writer of Luke, Mary was a relative of Elizabeth, wife of the priest Zechariah of the priestly division of Abijah, who was herself part of the lineage of Aaron and so of the Tribe of Levi.
Those are clearly two different genealogies of two different families, which have almost nothing in common after David, or more precisely, the one in Luke is a paternal genealogy that focuses on St. Joseph as the biological father of Jesus Christ, and doesn't mention St. Mary at all, while the one in Matthew is a maternal genealogy that focuses on St. Mary, since it only mentions St. Joseph as the husband of St. Mary, for legal reasons, and the genealogy ends with St. Mary as the mother of Jesus Christ.
The errors of Matthew is a big deal. I for one am suffering a great doubt after realising that no one has EVER come up with a satisfactory solution to this serious issue.
Which errors in particular are you referring to? Just curious. I’ve been struggling with doubts as well, and it does appear as though Matthew tried to tailor things to make it look like Jesus was various fulfilling prophecies...
@billyb7465 Do you want to see the errors? Matthew, to me, was written by cruninals. I can tell you errors to go check yourself. Folks who haven't read the Old Testament can't find those errors.
Including the female names in Matthew there are forty-six names.
In Luke there are seventy-six human names (the creator does not count as a human generation).
In the year as spelled out there are seventy-four letters...
Starting with Matthew count forty-six in and it is the "T" in SEPT (ember).
Starting with the letter "T" from the first count, use seventy-six from Luke to count in reverse.
The letter derived from that second count is the letter "P" in SEP (tember).
Each letter in SEPTEMBER represents 3.333 days so the letter "P" represents the end of the 10th day and the letter "T" starts days (11, 12, 13 and 1/3 day).
Bruh what??? First of all the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. Also they had different calendars then.
What were the calendars again?
Hebrew---An english word for a language that 99 plus percent of the public would know nothing about unless told what it meant (and then I would not be too certain). Furthermore, you did not address anything else as a rebuttal.
Greek---Do you know if it was written in Greek or translated into Greek later? I know what the patterns tell me despite the words.
Religion is helluva drug!
It's only one. I have tons of convergences and it is not about religion at all, but programming.
Genealogies mentioned in both MATTHEW and LUKE are ending in JOSEPH whose blood has nothing to do with Jesus. புரியல சார்.
One is to Joseph, one to Mary.
The House of Wisdom : Jesus came from Mary, you silly person.
@@golightly5121 both say Joseph...and without an earthly father Jesus can’t be of the Tribe of Judah
@@golightly5121 then he can’t be messiah
Mider999 : Both Mary and Joseph were in the line of David. Jesus does not have an earthly father, He is God’s only begotten Son.
This narrator of this video uses the words descendants when he means ancestors. He does this twice.
What gets me.... he has a genealogy through Joseph but in Matthew 1:18 he is born from a virgin? Jewish customs the Tribe is past from Father to Son. Jesus must be born from line of David and that can only be done through Joseph.
There are a few major problems here that you can not reconcile. The bible is clear in Numbers that tribal genealogy goes through the father so it is irrelevant who Mary comes from. If jesus was from God and only adopted from Joseph, he would not be from the line of David at all and not elligibale to be the messiah. Adoptive fathers don't count. The fact that Luke traces jesus from Nathan goes against the bible where it says the line will go through Solomon. And finally we are told clearly that Jeconiah who is listed in the lineage up to jesus, was cursed that the messiah would not come from him. Therefore, the issue of the contradictory lineages in Matthew and Luke are just the beginning of the problems here.
Illllllm1- Hello ADOPTION IS THE SAME FAMILY SAME RIGHTS. Just like today if a son is adopted into a family he inherits the Fathers estates and money same with the line!
@@TURQUOISEEYES Are you seriously comparing common law to Bible law? Are you aware that there is no concept anywhere in the entire Bible of an adopted child being an heir to their father? Show me where there is even a concept of adoption in the Bible. This is Bible 101. Of course this is only one problem here. As I've already mentioned there are many many other ones
@@nothingbutthetruth613 Yes, I am serious. The Jewish people accepted marriage as FAMILY because THAT is what they are.....FAMILY. THEY ALSO saw adoption as family......and So did the ROMANS WHICH IS WHY THEY WENT FOR THE CENSUS. JOSEPH TOOK MARY AS HIS WIFE with him. Did you notice that Mary's father didnt have to go.....the reason for that is Joseph was representative of BOTH families. The Roman's ENFORCED THE LAW of marriages and adoption. Hence the CENCUS. Jesus was regarded by law as Joseph's son and thus was EXPECTED to take up the family trade as well. Both Joseph and Jesus were CARPENTERS. SO....yes the married people WERE regarded as family by LAW ACCORDING TO JEWISH LAW, AND ROMAN LAW. Read John 6:42. The people referred to Jesus AS JOSEPH'S SON.
@@TURQUOISEEYES You are first of all ignoring all the other problems here but secondly you did not answer anything I asked you. Show me where there is any concept of adoption in the bible. I don't mean the nt. I am talking about the original bible. You can't prove the nt from the nt. I would hope that is obvious. I don't care what you think or you have been told they called jesus. The fact remains that there is no concept of adoption in the Bible and no indication whatsoever that any type of adopted person inherits anything. I am waiting for you to show me otherwise. The Bible is clear that tribal lineage goes through the father and there is no reason to assume this does not mean only a biological father.
So in other words, the supposed inerrant word of God is not clear and is open to interpretation, thus rendering itself non-inerrant. Makes you wonder about what other details it is ambiguous about and are therefore open to interpretation.
JIM URBAN, IT IS VERY clear. If you look at Matthew 1 it Lists Jacob as the Father of Joseph, with his Grandfather being Matthan. But if you turn to Luke 3:23 it ALSO says that Heli is Joseph's father. They are not contradicting each other at all! HELI IS THE FATHER IN LAW OF JOSEPH! HELI AND Jacob are brothers sharing the SAME father.....Matthan. That makes Mary and Joseph cousin. So By Marriage and by natural linage BOTH are connected to David's line. The prophecy is fulfilled TWICE with Jesus being the decentant of David. Even if you dont have a Bible they have scripture online. Look it up. It matches perfectly. They just didnt use the term in laws like they do today! My first cousins line is not exactly like mine. Is yours? I dont think so.
@@TURQUOISEEYES I’ve got five Bibles in my house right now. They all contradict each other the same way in Jesus’ lineage.
If it was intended to refer to Jesus’ father in law, it would have done so.
I’ve heard your excuse from other people before about how they didn’t have the “in law” language. This is nonsense, as we can look back as early as Genesis 19:12 for in-law language.
@@jimurban5367 Bull, you just cant admit your wrong. The term in laws is in our time not theirs. Get it right.. they dont say grandfather either.
@@TURQUOISEEYES I just gave you an example of the term in-law being used well before the time of Jesus, in the scriptures that Jesus was familiar with.
@@jimurban5367 As Joseph was also a cousin it would have been Father as the dont use GRANDFATHER OR COUSIN. They were from the same line. Also, THE BIBLE was written by different people using different terms as they were not raised and learned the same. Matthew was a Tax collector. You cant expect they would use the same term for everthing. I live in the south but grew up in the north they use Coke to refer to all soft drinks. They use phrases we never use in the North. They're writing and terms would be different from one another but it still means the same. Look it up online it says the same as me.
But wasn't Yeshua supposed to be born of a virgin mother, making tracing lineage through Joseph an effort in futility?
Its the BILLION DOLLAR question Christian apologetics cannot answer. I have asked it a millions times they don't know or the start theorising nonesense.
It just to show his family nevertheless if it’s his biological
@@megamillion2461 Seems more like a botched attempt to somehow fit him into the messianic prophecies which claimed the messiah would be a descendent of various people.
@@creepycat8256 whatever you want to believe
@@megamillion2461 "whatever you want to believe"
Not sure what that has to do with the topic. I'm merely pointing out the evidence here and following the evidence wherever it may lead, in order to arrive at a seemingly obvious conclusion.
Messianic prophesy claimed the messiah would be a descendant of certain people. Certain people which the different genealogies listed in the bible somehow agree on despite differing elsewhere, when these seperate genealogies both attempt to trace Yeshua back to these specific people via weirdly different paths.
One of the problems being, that using these oddly differing genealogies in an attempt to fullfill messianic prophesy to legitimize him as the messiah by tracing his lineage back to and describing him as a descendent of these specific people, doesn't actually make sense if he was also somehow magically born without an actual human father.
It just doesn't work.
To fix the confusions on jeconiahs curse.....there were two diff jeconiahs. Jesus lineage comes from one whom named was changed to jeconiahs. This happened quite a bit back then...even David was Balthazar
Just make things up to save face " no iot was this one" no evidence provided. Christainty is epitome of stupidity.
Predecessors are called ancestors not descendants. Twice it was stated Matthew and Luke provided a list of Josephs descendant when it should have mentioned Josephs ancestors.
If I understand the Old Testament correctly the right to the throne goes from father to son. Not father to daughter then to her son.
The second problem you have is Matthew tells us Jesus's father is God himself. This would not put Jesus in the line of David at all. Anyone got any ideas?
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL, you can find his phone number there and he will answer all of your questions, he is a true man of God.
A bigger problem with Matthew's genealogy is that when you count the generations from Babylon to Jesus, there are only 13 generations. So something is already messed up. Here is Matthew 1:12-16 with the generations noted:
12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Shealtiel (1), and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel (2).
13 Zerubbabel begot Abiud (3), Abiud begot Eliakim (4), and Eliakim begot Azor (5).
14 Azor begot Zadok (6), Zadok begot Achim (7), and Achim begot Eliud (8).
15 Eliud begot Eleazar (9), Eleazar begot Matthan (10), and Matthan begot Jacob (11).
16 And Jacob begot Joseph (12) the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus (13) who is called Christ.
The problem happens because Joseph at number (12) is said to be the husband of Mary, making Jesus number (13). However, when you look at Matthew 1:12-16 in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, note how it has Yosef (English Joseph) as the father of Miryam (English Mary) and not the husband. Yosef was a common Jewish name.
12 (After the Babylonian exile) Y'khanyahu begot Sh'altiel (1); Sh'altiel begot Z'rubavel (2). 13 Z'rubavel begot Avihud (3), Avihud begot Elyakim (4); Elyakim begot 'Azur (5). 14 'Azur begot Tzadok(6); Tzadok begot Yakhin (7); Yakhin begot El'ichud (8). 15 El'ichud begot El'azar (9); El'azar begot Mattan (10); Mattan begot Ya'akov (11). 16 Ya'akov begat Yosef (12) the father of Miryam (13), of whom was born Yeshua (14), who is called the Messiah.
So Matthew 1 records the genealogy of Mary whose father's name was Joseph, which also happened to be the name of her husband, while Luke 3 records the genealogy of Jesus' stepfather Joseph whose father's name was Heli.
Nah. The problem is that they are WRONG and MADE UP.
😂😂
How do I know?
They both trace his lineage through Joseph. But Joseph wasn't his father anyway because MARY WAS A VIRGIN😁
Shame on you. Why would lie like that about Matthew 1:12-16? There is no genealogy of Mary in there. Which Bible are you reading from? God have mercy on you for confusing people
Got to feel sorry for some of the people making ignorant comments.
One typographical error in Matt. made this. Joseph in Matt. Is not the husband of Mary but the father of Mary. Mary is the descendant of King Solomon. I found the original Hebrew text which has this. In Greek translation, somebody typed wrongly that is it!
Why did an Angel visited Joseph in dreams bcoz of the change in d body of Mary and open every thing to him and he called Jesus the first son
Imagine you were analyzing The Book of Mormon. If you came across the passage below, what would you immediately think? And if it didn't fit the narrative of what the LDS said about their faith being perfectly inspired, would you suggest they find a way for it to say that? Or to simply accept that it doesn't?
In this passage, who is "the son of Heli?"
"Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli."
The Mormon book says that Jesus was the "son of hell?"
@@sonnydee5135 son of hel-*i*, be more careful when reading
they had a lot of the other writings from other bibles
You don't know and can't know because you are basing your understanding on the Greek. That is a TRANSLATION from the original language - Aramaic. The Aramaic version has the ANSWER. And it's been there right from the very start of that original text.
Love how he said in the end we don't know these are possible plausible solutions. No! they are contradictions that yall would like to make sense of which is illogical... how can you trace lineage if Jesus was not the son of Joseph.. its like me saying ill trace my lineage of my step dad whom has no blood line connection with me.. if Luke's account was of Mary's lineage her father was not Heli it was Joachim therefore Joseph would be the son in law of Joachim not Heli if yall were to use that logic of Jospeh being son on law of heli... smh
If Luke gives Mary's Genealogy, it should end with Mary not Joseph.
Basically nobody knows why it's different so we shouldn't even try to explain it away.
Doesn't necessarily have to end with Mary. If Heli is Mary's father, Joseph became a son of Heli through marriage and "becoming one" with a person born by Heli. A son in law is still a son. The wording of Luke also states this could be possible. In the Matthew genealogy it uses the word "begot" which means came from the loins, in the Luke genealogy it uses the word "son". You can legally become a man's son without being begotten by him.
No, brother in Christ, the correct explanation can be found here : ruclips.net/video/7PIU7CdCzWI/видео.html
@@EmetYAHU The correct explanation is that since both trace lineage through JOSEPH and Mary was A VIRGIN when she had him Joseph is not his father meaning both of them are wrong and just plain made up
Ayinde Murphy Wrong. Watch : ruclips.net/video/7PIU7CdCzWI/видео.html
@@EmetYAHU
These Scriptures are tracing LINEAGE in the GENETIC sense. I have 4 daughters whom I love deeply. ONE of them however is my daughter BY LOVE and NOT by BLOOD. That DOES NOT make her any less a part of our Family but , for instance, if she has a medical problem and the doctor needs to know her Family Medical History then looking at MY relatives would not be helpful.
Jesus is/was NOT descended from Joseph's Bloodline and IF Mary was a virgin when she had him then you guys need to STOP jumping through hoops trying to make sense of the nonsensical
They said it wasn't custom to be showing the woman's descendants in that culture but when I was listening to the gospels all by myself that's what was revealed to me was it was Mary's descendants I truly believe this also we seen many times in the Bible things that are common God totally radically change is it like instead of the first time it would be the second son inheriting something something that's totally unheard of that happens throughout the Bible so I am truly convinced it is Mary's bloodline
Well both genealogy’s end with Joseph and neither end with Mary unless ur trying to say Joseph and Mary are related
@@4lsteppa647 that's because of the culture back then
@@4lsteppa647 also I trust in the Lord he made the Bible he inspired Every Word by the spirit and if something seems wrong it's usually our fault or it's beyond our comprehension it's there for a reason think about it trust in Christ trust in God
@@emsdiy6857 ya but why did u say u think it was Mary’s bloodline when it says Joseph and are u saying if something in the Bible doesn’t make sense or contradicts itself, It’s our fault?
@@4lsteppa647 I guess you're not understanding what I'm trying to say maybe there's something else we don't understand about it and it'll be revealed another day
Jesus dont have genealogic!.. He is son or Mary!!
Both Joseph and Mary are of the tribe of Judah. Judah is a direct descendant of Abraham. Abraham of Noah.
I understand what you are saying and agree. You cannot have this story both ways ...... he was either a virgin birth or his Father is Joseph ..... what Matthew and Luke are saying is his birth was normal and his father was Joseph. Just a couple more contradictions with the bible, among hundreds.
Neither give heed to fables and endless geneologies which minister questions rather than Godly edifying which is in faith so do
Grasp the nettle and accept that the two genealogies are largely fictional and, as a result, contradictory. That way you do not have to dilute the rest of the text by adding back-stories in support of your presupposed conclusion that there is no contradiction.
So the biblical writers and early church fathers who put the bible together just let a contradiction in God's word? Lol 😂 Get real.
Luke 1:32
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
No pal
@@Kreationcreatures You are the one who thinks it is 'God's word', not me.
Mary was from Levi not Judah. We know this because Mary went to visit Elizabeth her cousin.
Elizabeth was married to Zacharias a priest. Only Levites coupd be priests.
While Mary could marry out of the tribe of Levi to wed Joseph, nobody was allowed to mary into Levi.
This is how we know Mary was from the tribe of Levi.
Besides that genealogies were not kept for women only men.
Luke's geneology lists David's son Nathan but Solomon and his heirs are the only Biblical line to the messiah.
Matthew's line lists Jeconiah in its lineage, but Jeconiah and all his dependents were cutoff from ever ruling Israel/Judah again
It’s actually simple. After Solomon’s fall at the end of his life, God took the blessing from him (as in the “legal” kingship lineage to the Messiah). Kingship lineage is accepted in Jewish custom only by paternal blood. Solomon’s descendants come to Joseph - the “father” of Jesus. However, there is no blood of Joseph in Jesus because of the prophetical fulfillment of the virgin birth - because Jesus was conceived in Mary by the Holy Spirit. Yet, Jesus does have the blood of David through Nathan’s descendants that come to Mary. Though, according to legal customs, Jesus would not have been attributed kingship because the royal blood was passed from his mother rather than his father. God took away Solomon’s blessing “legally” according to Jewish customs and thus Solomon’s blood is not in Jesus. That is why there are two different genealogies recorded. One to show Jesus had the blood of David, and the other to show He legally could be considered of kingship lineage through Joseph - if not for the virgin birth.
In Matthew genealogy, if it is divided into 3 groups of 14.. then it should be 42 right? Why it is only 41? Is there a missing generation?
David mentioned twice
Nope @@onionsans
@@terryhuffaker3615 Have you even looked at the geneology
Did the prophesies say he will come as a king? And what type of king are you talking about! Well the scriptures said he will be a man of sorrow acquainted with grief and such that we'll esteem him not
Because they are lies. There ia not a jc.
excuse me but Joseph had nothing physical to do with Jesus conception, birth, or therefore ideology. It's Mary who matters when it comes to the family tree
Another explaination is that there are female names in there. When opened up to not be a strict single-sex line, there's easily the possibility of many paths that recombine after so many generations.
That would only be possible with the lineage in Matthew, because in Luke it is always ”sons” explicitly.
No, no, no. The answer is so simple and it's right there in the scripture. Matthew gives the Royal lineage and Luke is the worldly lineage.
In Matthew, the Aramaic gives Joseph as "the man" of Mary, meaning her father was ALSO named Joseph. This is an account of patriarchal lineage with Mary as the daughter of a man named Joseph, descended from David. Matthew's account gives the Royal lineage of the Messiah, Son of God. Count the generations and it all fits. Abraham to David; Solomon to Jeconiah; ShilathaIyl to Jesus (counting Mary).
Luke gives Mary's husband Joseph's lineage because it was supposed that this Joseph was Jesus' father. As the scripture clearly states. This is an account of Jesus' LEGAL Son of Man lineage.
I have no idea why Christians make this so complicated.
How do we know it’s “a man” and not “a spouse” when Aramaic hasn’t survived to our days? Could you be so kind to explain, please🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
Short and give us great possible solutions, well I prefer Matthew from the lineage of Marry, and Luke from the lineage of Joseph. Great teaching!
I personally think that it makes no sense for Jesus to have come from Joseph,s geneology since Jesus was not begotten by Joseph
The Hebrew manuscripts for Matthew 1 reveal that it’s the genealogy of Mary’s FATHER, Joseph, and not Mary’s husband, Joseph, which would give exactly 14 generations as stated in Matthew 1:17. Luke 3 is the genealogy of Mary’s husband, Joseph, which begs the question of why is his genealogy listed if he’s not the biological father?
Jesus had no biological father. Jesus is the Son of God.
Matthew 1:16 "and Jacob the father of Joseph THE HUSBAND OF MARY, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ."
@@EmpireExplorer I've also heard what the OP refers to, the word translated here as husband in the Peshitta is _gowra_ , which is actually a guardian or caretaker, not husband
What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? - Mt22
Two genealogies painting to two individuals. Zarasthustra inhabits the Solomon Jesus at birth to the age of 12. He then inhabits the Nathan Jesus from age 12 to the thirtieth year. During His 30th year, Zarathustra departs and Christ descends into the human body of the Nathan Jesus.
We knew David from old testament had two sons: Nathan and Solomon
In luke the genealogy says that jesus is related to king David through his son Nathan
While in Matthew the genealogy says that jesus is related to king David through his son Solmon
So how could Jesus be traced back to both Nathan and Solomon at the same branch of the tree? Are you people stupid? Does no sane person see the logical fallacies in this book?
This is plain stupidity. Jesus was not the descendent of David. Paternity in Jews and ME in general is decided by fathers bloodline.
Matthews was pandering to jews for mercy when he wrote Jesus as the 14th descendent of David. Its not a coincidence that none of these disciples were with Jesus during crucifixion.
@@kinglistosas5010 By a self proclaimed disciple,
“If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” (Matt 22:45). This was asked by Jesus himself, so who do you trust Paul or Jesus.
Tell me who do you trust more?
Matthews' lineage was the royal one. Christ was by adoption the Son of David. We have a problem with Jeconiah. God promised to Jeconiah that no descendant of his his would rule over Israel. Mary's lineage bypasses Jeconiah. Christ was to be a son of Nathan physically and by that the curse of Jeconiah would not apply wold not apply to him. Luke, focusing on Christ's humanity, proved that Christ was the seed of the David, and the seed of the woman, mentioned in Genesis. Thus Christ is of the lineage of David physically, and the seed of the woman as promised in Genesis.
Ones to Mary ones to Joseph. It is showing that not only was jesus of David’s blood but so was the man that raised him. He is 100% of king David’s descendants... god is just that genius.
Yashua Fly What a brilliant God we serve!
Joseph was not Jesus father but both trace his lineage through Joseph. If Mary was a virgin when she had him then both lineages are a lie. If she wasn't then at least one of them is a lie along with the account of the Virgin Birth.
Ayinde Murphy use those critical thinking skills god gave you my friend. Back then, men were of importance only in family hierarchy. Especially when dealing with lineage. Joseph was Jesus earthly father, he raised him. The descendant of king David raised Jesus. The next lineage even states” Joseph is his supposed father”. Mary being Joseph’s property it was politically incorrect to trace from the mother, regardless of its relevance. We know it’s Marys lineage because of the differences, it is unnecessary.
Funny how historians and religious scholars all concur on this explanation of the differences, yet here you come to correct the world. 🤣
At this point in history lineages where very important, and individually memorized, especially by Jews. Jesus had siblings that all new the lineages as well, there is no reason this would be unattainable, or made up.
@@yashuafly6342 Plenty of reason to make it up. Tying him to that adulterer King David in order to claim he was the Messiah. Matthew and Luke give 2 different lineages. BOTH are wrong according to the Bible. Maybe people "supposed" Joseph was his father because they didn't know about the Virgin Birth?
NOWHERE does it talk about Jesus reciting his family tree or the account of his birth.Maybe he did but there is no proof as all we have are contradicting stories.
Oh yeah and being raised by someone DOES NOT make you a part of their Bloodline.
Their FAMILY? Sure. But NOT their Bloodline. And if Blood was not relevant then neither was the lineage
Yashua Fly Jesus isn’t God. He was a Prophet of God. Jesus never even claimed to be God or asked to be worshipped. God would clearly do both of those things if it depends on humanities salvation
Joseph's son; (Joseph was) Heli's (son)? wrong! It must be the grandson, but the focus question is the grandson of the Nth generation? What is N? Who is the grandfather?
The text explicitly indicates in both gospels these are the genealogies of joseph not mary. How are they still different? Both cannot be historical. According to brewdaism and the old testament myths, there are two messiahs; one is the son of joseph the other is the son of david. Same encoded in the new myths?
WIW LaRue- take a look at Matthew 1 where it lists Jacob as Joseph's father and Matthan as his Grandfather. Now, turn in your Bible (if you have one) to Luke 3:23 there you will see that Luke lists Heli as Joseph's father. Can a man have two father's yes......a father IN LAW! Only doesnt call it that. Heli also has the same Father as Jacob. Mary's father is Heli and her Grandfather is Matthan too! They are cousin.
@@TURQUOISEEYES I understand we are into some "pilpul" here. Both of the gospels state this is the genealogy of Joseph not Mary. Read the text. How then would someone be descended from two different ancestors at the same time on the paternal line? From David both gospels point out different sons of David as the successors in line, Nathan and Solomon. No one is able to have two different great grandfathers. It's either one or the other. In Matthew Joseph's father, grandfather, great grand, great-great grand as follows: Jacob, Matthan,Eliezar, Elious. According to Luke the same as follows: Heli, Mathat, Levi, Melchi. You could say there was a stepfather or someone else involved but since both gospels state Jesus was born of a virgin his father couldn't have been Joseph. If this text isn't full of contradictions then what is?
@@wiwlarue4097 First, The Bible counts The two as one flesh. Gen.2:24. Second, as a cousin they still would have shared the same family members but come up with different lines as they share only half of the DNA with one another. They would STILL be each other's family. My first cousin is still a member of my family! Third there is such thing as Liverate family. Which is if one brother died the brother's wife would marry the living brother. You are also forgetting that Jacob from Jacob and Esau, married TWO of his cousin and it recorded THAT. LABEN WAS BOTH FATHER IN LAW AND UNCLE TO Jacob. And yet it records it as Jacob's line as well! So no matter how you look at it they would have been related. That was very Common for them to marry 1st cousins in Biblical times.
@@TURQUOISEEYES Well life is a journey through awareness and if you are unable to assess there is no such thing as a man and a woman being considered as one when talking about the man's lineage then you've to pay more attention to the details because Joseph couldn't have been the father to Jesus when both gospels state Jesus was born of a virgin. Joseph was a man and according to christian faith God impregnated Mary not Joseph thus Joseph couldn't have transferred his DNA to conceive a child. Of course Batman could fly, Gulliver was a giant whose steps rocked the earth as he walked and Baron Munchausen used to travel on the back of a cannon ball. In fables anything is possible. You only need faith to believe them.
@@wiwlarue4097 I never said Joseph was the Father of of Jesus. He is the ADOPTED father of Jesus. Which qualifies him in the line that way and then NATURALLY through Mary. Jacob Joseph's father was the Son of Matthan and so was Heli the son of Matthan. How stupid are you to not realize THEY ARE BROTHERS. Back then there was also a thing called Levirate marriage. That is when one brother takes over the other brothers widow upon the death of his brother. THAT was also common in Biblical times.
They are supposedly Joseph's genealogy not actually Jesus'. If we are to believe G-d is Jesus' father then genealogies don't matter in this case. Now, Josephs'
thought was to divorce Mary because she was pregnant by someone else. In the gospel of John he is called a Samaritan in John 8 48 and in John 7 there are comments about him not being a descendant of David. Now, some go as far as saying one of the genealogies are of Mary, but Mary can't assign a tribe nor is she a descendant of David and though we read in Luke that Elizabeth is a relative of the tribe of Levi, we're still not sure where Mary is from. Moreover, if Jesus' is illegitimate and there's no father's name on his birth certificate, then he is considered a bastard or gentile with no tribe. That's it plain and simple.
Set it straight....luke was NOT an apostle and did NOT know jesus. Matthew WAS an apostle named by jesus and knew jesus. Period. Thats really all therenis to know. Paul, luke and mark are NOT apostles and never knew jesus directly.
The only people bothered by discrepancies are the people who believe there are no discrepancies.
The people who love discrepancies are the people who don't believe the Bible is the Word of God.
The remainder don't care or don't know.
Why is any important Joseph's genealogy if he is not Jesus father?
Why is everything about Christianity questionable and debatable...?
It isn't lol
Define everything. And that’s just the nature of life. Everything can be challenged. Philosophers argue if we even exist.
In the new international version luke says so it is thought of Joseph.
The son of Heli.
If its marry's genealogy how can marry be son of Heli.
All the explanation is without any proof. So how will be able to proof someone wrong when you want to preach to him who thinks Mathew and luke all got it wrong
Levitical marriage is a logical conclusion. But Mary descending from one of those is without evidence.
Love the answers and the humility of them ,thank you.
Thank you, this was helpful.
Revelation 4:7: "And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle."
Matthew presents the Lord in His Kingly authority, represented by the Lion. Mark gives the view as Jesus the Servant, represented by the calf (ox) the beast of service and sacrifice, and there is not genealogy as a servant needs only the ability to serve and in Mark's account, He is seldom addressed as Lord, and never by the disciples.In Luke, the Man as man He is the High Priest. Different from the synoptic gospels is John's which is represented by the flying eagle. John's genealogy is simple "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
The order of the Gospels singularly agree with the definition of numbers: One is the number which speaks of independence, sovereignty, supremacy as Matthew presents Him as Lord and King. Two is the number of dependence, ministry, service, and taking the inferior place, as He takes the place to minister rather than be ministered unto. Three is the number of manifestation, and the Priest brings man into God's presence and manifests God to man. Four, in Scripture is most often divided into 2x2 which is the natural division of the number, but in the Gospels it divides into 3+1, so four is not as prominently pronounced in John's gospel as its numbers are three and one.
See "Four Views of Christ" by Andrew Jukes:
www.friendsofsabbath.org/Further_Research/Bible/Andrew%20Jukes%20Works/Four%20Views%20of%20Christ.pdf
and "The Numerical Structure of Scripture" by F. W. Grant: www.newble.co.uk/grant/nsb/preface.html
How do you know that?
Bro. It will never make sense. Bcoz, it's written that Miriam and Eliyaveth are the daughters of Aharon the High Priest. If you look at the geneology of Luke, Aharon won't be even there in the geneology. So, the geneology of HaMashiach in Luke isn't of Miriam. It belongs to Yosef. Just do some research through Old Testament. You will find your answer. Don't depend on others. They may give you wrong information. Do research through Old Testament.
We knew David from old testament had two sons: Nathan and Solomon
In luke the genealogy says that jesus is related to king David through his son Nathan
While in Matthew the genealogy says that jesus is related to king David through his son Solmon
So how could Jesus be traced back to both Nathan and Solomon at the same branch of the tree? Are they stupid?
Other explanations: mary was married to two men called Joseph. or she was transgender and called Joseph before she changed.
@Rand K you wrote:
>"In the ancient Hebrew texts of Matthew, the genealogy in Matthew is for Mary, and that the Joseph mentioned is Mary's father..."
There is no "ancient Hebrew" text for Matthew. The earliest text we had are in Greek and are from the 2nd century CE. The earliest Hebrew texts we have are later translations from either the Greek or the later Latin texts. If you are referring to Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew" then that was written in the 14th century based on Latin. An analysis of the text is found here:
WILLIAM L. PETERSEN, "THE VORLAGE OF SHEM-TOB'S 'HEBREW MATTHEW'"; New Test. Stud. vol. 44,1998, pp. 490-512
Secondly: Mary's father was not called "Yoesph avi Miriam" there are no mentioning of that in the Bible. The only place you find the name of Mary's parents is in the apocryphal Gospel of James, and their names are Joachim and Anne.
Thirdly: If the lineage given in Matthew is the Royal lineage, then Jesus would be unable to inherit the throne of David as it contains Jeconiah who was cursed as follows by god.
" _This is what the LORD says: 'Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah_ .'" -- Jeremiah 22:30
If Jesus was the of the Lineage of Jeconiah then Jesus would, according to god, never inherit Davids throne.
Jeremiah 22 is echoed by Haggai 2 concerning Zerubabbel's royal governorship over Judah.
(Jeremiah 22:24) "As I live, declares the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet ring on my right hand, yet I would tear you off
(Haggai 2:23) On that day, declares the Lord of hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel my servant, the son of Shealtiel, declares the Lord, and make you like a signet ring, for I have chosen you, declares the Lord of hosts."
Scripture contains numerous examples of God pronouncing an apparently irreversible curse on someone and reversing it because of repentance. The literary relationship between the above two texts and the fact that Zerubabbel is a descendent of Jeconiah suggests that this is the case here. In Zechariah Zerubbabel is the representative of David's line as the prince who rules over Judah. It's not just Christians saying this either- there are a number of Jewish traditions in the Talmud asserting this view.
As for the Hebrew text of Matthew the patristic tradition is universal that Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Hebrew, with many sources saying that it was Matthew himself who rendered it into Greek- more of a "rewriting" in Greek with the same content than a translation. This can't be dismissed out of hand either as there were a number of Christian writers who claimed to have seen the original Hebrew text of Matthew's Gospel, which was in use among some Jewish Christians. Most scholars think that there's no surviving manuscript of Hebrew Matthew, but there are a few who interestingly suggest that the Hebrew Matthew used by non-Christian rabbis as the text they cite to criticize Jesus and Christianity was a descendant of the Hebrew of Matthew's Gospel.
Matthew is undoubtedly the lineage of Joseph, but adoptive lineage was perfectly legitimate in the Bible to receive inheritance. Consider the example of Caleb in Numbers. He's a Kenizzite by birth but is adopted into the lineage of Judah to receive a promise of inheritance. The royal promise through David's seed was about inheritance, as is stated in Psalm 2 and elsewhere. The throne is, as it were, the "family heirloom" of David's line. Joseph is addressed as "son of David" when it is said that he should "not fear to take Mary as your wife." His marriage to Mary is essential as it provided the basis for Jesus' legal claim to David's throne.
The relatives of Jesus were prominent members of the early Church and used their family genealogy as a preaching tool, according to Africanus, so His claim to Davidic pedigree through Joseph is historically well grounded. I'm undecided as to whether Luke provides Mary's genealogy (into which Joseph is adopted) or Joseph's. I accept the historicity of Joachim and Anna as the blood parents of Mary, but telescoping genealogies was a legitimate practice and occurs in Matthew's genealogy as well.
@@Seraphim-Hamilton This doesn't hold. The reason is that Zerubbable was never king or ruled Judah. The Babylonian exile marked the end of the Kingdom of the Jews. The area became a province of the Persian Empire. The King and the actual ruler of Judah during this time was Darius the Great who was the one who appointed Zerubbable as *governor* . The first to title himself as a King of the Jews after the exile was Herod the Great (granted to him by the Roman Senate) and he was a client king and definitely not a relative of Jesus.
That "Matthew" translated the Gospel from Hebrew to Grek doesn't work either. First off we have no idea who wrote Matthew as the Gospel gives no indication of who the author is, he or she is anonymous. The name Matthew is given by tradition not based on any evidence what-so-ever. Furthermore this gospel is based on the earlier Gospel of Mark, which is the earliest of the synoptic gospels. Mark the Evangelist was, according to legend, the disciple of Paul, so he never met Jesus or was one of the disciples of Jesus - and Matthew copies this author later on. Both the Gospel of Mark and the later Gospel of Matthew were written in Greek as were all other Biblical New Testament writings. The only Hebrew versions we have of them have been translated from Latin and were written over one thousand years later. _I would like to hear which early christian author you claim state that Matthew was written in Hebrew, reference please_ .
An adopted son could inherit things according to Jewish Law but never tribal affiliation. Thus an adopted son would never belong to the tribe of the adopted father. Caleb is listed as being of the Tribe of Judah (Numbers 13 e.g.) His father is listed later listed as being Kenizzite (Numbers 32:12), which was a nation in Canaan. If we ignore the fact that this is likely just another of the internal contradictions we see in the Bible, then it is no more strange than listing someone as a member of a tribe but coming from a different area. Note, Caleb is not listed as a Kenizzite from what I can see and is not listed as being adopted either, right?
Sextus Julius Africanus wrote in the late 2nd and early 3rd century CE and had no first hand sources to base anything on. He is trying to get the two contradictory lineages in Matthew and Luke to fit via the idea of a Levirate Marriage, but that doesn't work either.
There is no historical evidence of Jesus pedigree. There is no historical evidence that Jesus existed outside of the Bible either apart from Josephus (accepted as a forgery- likely by Eusebius, who was the first to report that passage in the fourth century) and there even later Tacitus (which we have forensically shown to have been altered) which nobody used as an indication of Jesus existence until the 15th century, after that change in the text.
The mainstream theologians which I have read accept that the reason for the contrary lineages given in Matthew and Luke is simply because they are made up by later authors in order to try to give justification to the claim that Jesus was the Messiah (which the Jews and other non-christians do not accept).
@@Draugh39
I know how these discussions can balloon so I'll make this my last comment (there's going to be a few). In order:
1. I referred to Zerubabbel as governor in my original comment. The point is not that he literally sat on the throne of an independent Judean state, but that his pedigree in both Zechariah and Haggai is couched in his Davidic ancestry. My main point was the reference in Haggai 2, which uses phrases which echo Jeremiah 22 and suggest that the curse has been reversed. There is plenty of precedent in the Bible for a curse which is pronounced but reversed, and the convergence of "signet ring" terminology indicates that this is the case. I cited the Talmudic references to show that the literary echo is sufficiently strong to persuade those Jewish authors who are uninterested in providing a foundation for Jesus' messianic claims. Also key is Zechariah 4, where Zerubbabel is described as the prince anointed by the Spirit to lay the foundation of the temple. The liturgical service of the temple is administered by the high priest, but the actual building and upkeep of the temple is everywhere associated with kings. Most obviously, Solomon builds the Temple. This goes as far back as the Pentateuch where Moses oversees the construction of the Tabernacle- Moses is presented as a kingly figure, as argued here:
www.amazon.com/Pentateuchal-Portrayal-Library-Testament-Studies/dp/0567315150
The dual role of king and priest is typologically matched by the double ministry of Joshua the High Priest and Zerubbabel the governor descended from David.
2. You say that we have no indication of who wrote Matthew except for tradition. Well, of course we rely on the traditional ascription. But it was quite unusual in this period for texts to circulate without a title, and we have no special reason to think that the Gospels originally circulated without their titles. Moreover, if they did originally circulate as anonymous documents and become popular as anonymous documents, we would expect scribes in different parts of the Empire to give different titles- after all, they had no way of communicating with each other, and it's hard to explain why there is not a single copy of Matthew which circulates under an alternative title- and absolutely no historical trace of an alternative tradition for Matthew's authorship of the Gospel. By contrast, by the second century we have a variety of Christian writers spread over a wide geographical span ascribing the Gospel to the Apostle Matthew. This is solid external testimony, and is precisely the same way that we identify the authors of other ancient documents- there are plenty of them whose only authorial ascription is in the title of the manuscript and in external attestation. The person who wishes to argue that Matthew was originally anonymous must do more than argue against what I've said above (and much more could be said)- he must provide a positive explanatory model which makes sense of why the ascription to Matthew was so widespread, in both manuscript evidence and in early Christian tradition, over such a wide geographical span, in such a short period of time. I don't think this can be done.
3. The earliest tradition is that Matthew wrote before Mark. This can't be waved off, either. This tradition is mentioned by Papias, and Papias undertook a period of investigation in the late first century and was personally acquainted with those who had known Jesus during His ministry, such as John the Presbyter (whom I identify with the Apostle) and Aristion. He also knew well the daughters of Philip the Deacon, who served his ministry in the first decade after the ministry of Jesus. These aren't traditions that pop up after a black hole of nothingness- they are documented by those who had a living connection with the very earliest generation of Christians, those who lived before, during, and after the composition of the Gospels about which they spoke. Following John Wenham, I think there's very good internal evidence that Mark was using Matthew as his structural model and abridging Matthew in parts. For example, in Mark 4, which provides a short selection of parables where the parallel text in Matthew has a much larger set, Mark (or "Mark" if you'd prefer) says that "in His teaching" Jesus taught these parables. He uses the same formula several other times in his Gospel, which suggests that he was consciously abridging portions of Matthew's text. This resolves the objections revolving around Markan priority. The assumption of Markan priority essentially relies in it being shorter than Matthew. This isn't a particularly strong argument, and there is very early, very widespread attestation to Matthew's writing first.
4. I think you're confusing Mark with Luke. Mark was a disciple and follower of Peter, and the tradition is universal that Mark was writing his Gospel based on the preaching and testimony of Peter. The connection between Mark and Peter is found in the NT.
5. As for early Christian attestation to a Hebrew Matthew, here's Papias:
"Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could."
Note that when Papias is giving his account of the authorship of the Gospels he's citing John the Presbyter, a disciple of Jesus with whom Papias was closely acquainted. One could claim that he's making things up, but such a radically skeptical approach to our historical sources requires a strong justification. This tradition is mentioned by a large number of other early Christian writers from disparate locations. Some of them state that they had seen and read the Hebrew form of Matthew, and there's no reason to think they are making things up. Here's a page which non-sensationally looks at the ancient testimony:
hebrewgospel.com/
6. As for Jewish law I'm not so much interested in the form of Jewish law we have preserved several centuries after the close of the Second Temple period, which represents a later form of one stream of a multifacted Judaism that prevailed at the time of Christ. In particular, the approach you described strongly reflects a Judaism that has become detached from the concrete questions of land and inheritance. Here's why- conversion to Judaism wasn't just conversion to a religion. It was adoption into a people- you became a descendant of Abraham. This is absolutely inseparable from the promise made by God of an inheritance. In Joshua 13-24 we are given the tribal boundaries of the land of Israel, where each plot of land is allotted to a specific tribal lineage. So on the model you reference (which comes long after the time of Jesus and the NT, as mentioned), a person who converts to Judaism joins Israel without having a tribe- and thus has no inheritance. So he becomes an Israelite without having any of the promises made to Israel. This is clearly no good.
Legal transmission of the family name and property was not identical to blood descent, as we can see in the law of Levirate marriage. On this law, a man who dies without any offspring to transmit the family property will be provided offspring by his brother who marries his wife and raises up offspring for him. In other words, even though the bloodline is the living brother's, the legal title belongs to the one who has died. Caleb was a Kenizzite by blood per the text you reference. He did not bear the family title, as he was (by implication) adopted into the tribe of Judah, thus receiving an inheritance in the alloted property of the Judahite tribe.
7. As for whether Africanus had any reliable sources, the relatives of Jesus were prominent leaders in the church into the second century and transmitted family traditions. This is attested by numerous early sources- see Bauckham's "Jude and the Relatives of Jesus" for a more detailed treatment. This is part of the dilemma that I think is posed to those who want to minimize the historical value of the NT and its associated traditions. It's not as if these people and their associates disappeared into a black hole. They continued to be active well into the first century, and their immediate relatives and associates continued to be active well into the second.
8. This makes it especially improbable that Jesus never existed (!), as the process of explaining how in the world a certain group of people came to be known uncontroversially as relatives of the Lord in the first and second centuries popped into existence. Despite claims to the contrary, there is zero evidence for a special group of Christians called "the Brothers of the Lord" and Paul's reference to James as brother of Jesus is most naturally taken biologically. Josephus also refers to the execution of "James, the brother of Jesus, the so-called Messiah." This mention by Josephus is cited by Origen in the third century in the same breath that Origen states that Josephus did not confess Jesus as Messiah, which contradicts the present (certainly corrupt) version of the Testimonium, though the latter is best explained in terms of marginal notes added to an originally Josephan reference to Jesus.
9. There's no reason to make "outside the Bible" the only data that counts. What matters as a matter of history is how parsimoniously we can explain the data we have. Certain people in the first-century produced the documents which were later collected into the New Testament. Even if one regards them as generally unreliable, the question is how we can parsimoniously explain an early Jewish movement centered on a figure named Jesus who was revered as Israel's messiah. Things don't happen for no reason. The simplest explanation for this is that there was a historical person called Jesus who carried out a ministry which resonated with Jewish hopes for redemption and the coming of the Messiah. The simplest explanation for the existence of the NT documents is that they were written about this person. Other explanations are needlessly complex and incredibly clunky, and have immense difficulty explaining how the earliest, allegedly mythical-heavenly realm Jesus (the mythicist construct of this "sublunar realm" is generally regarded as a construct of Doherty that never existed) became so centered on an historical first-century Jew who never existed- so that nobody, whether Christian or not, even remembered that the earliest Christians didn't affirm an historical Jesus. As I said above, there's no black hole. The associates of the earliest Christians are alive and documented into the second century.
10. As for Josephus and Tacitus there are two references to Jesus in Josephus, one of which is in relation to his brother James and is quoted by Origen in the third century. I'll ignore the Testimonium for now except to say that most experts on Josephus hold that it has an original, authentic core. Not to say that I automatically follow the consensus by any means, but you should take that into account in what you are considering obvious and settled. The attribution of the Testimonium to Eusebius suggests that Eusebius somehow got control of the entire manuscript tradition of Josephus. I've only ever seen this claim made on certain dubious websites. Is there even evidence that Eusebius was a scribe who transmitted Josephan manuscripts? Maybe there is, but I'm not aware of it. Regardless, that's not the main point. You still have to deal with the other reference if you want to roll with mythicist ideas.
11. As for Tacitus I'm not aware of a single expert on Tacitus or Roman historian who holds that view. The claim that it has been "forensically demonstrated" to a certainty is absolutely false. Perhaps you're mixing this up with the view that the entire works of Tacitus are 15th century forgeries? This is one of those bizarre, looney theories that gets circulated on the web. But we have manuscripts of Tacitus dating to the eleventh century- I think with 15.44 intact, though I'd have to double check. The idea that the entire work of Tacitus is forged runs into the tough problem of explaining how he again and again nails Roman history to a tee, according to external and archaeological corroboration. He is our best single source for the period.
12. As for mainstream theologians I think they're wrong. I don't consider being in the "mainstream" to be indicative of much at all besides being in the mainstream.
Okay, as I said, that's my final comment. Sorry about the length. These things tend to exponentially increase in size.
Since Josephs coc# was in the holster at the time, it doesn't look like the genealogies should have been from Josephs line anyway for Jesus to have been of the seed of Abraham. Did God keep his promise or is the Jesus thing a giant hoax?
One gives the genealogy of Josephs lineage, while the other gives the lineage of Marys.
We know and understand in parts but time shall come when we will know it all but as it stands, all about the Messiah were fulfilled in Christ and old prophecies fulfilled in Joseph and Mary period.
Not true. Jesus didn't fulfill any of the Messianic Prophecies. I can tell you don't even know any of the Prophecies. Did Jesus come as a king?
He is right. Matthew's IS JOSEPH 'S LINE. And Luke is Mary's. If you look at Matthew 1 it says that Jacob is Joseph's father. But in Luke 3:23 it says Heli is Joseph's father BOTH are correct as they are BOTH LEGALLY father and Son. Heli was his father by marriage. A rather big clue. Making Mary and Joseph cousins. Here is something else for people to know. If you are ADOPTED BY LAW you ARE that person's son or daughter. You inherit the estates, lineage and money of your father or mother. Even if they adopt a elder son and then have a natural son later; the adopted one would have ALL the first born rights. Similarly, if you are father/son in LAW you would be considered father and Son. Blood related is not NECESSARY IN A COURT OF LAW. LEGAL relationship supersedes blood ties. Then AND now.
Agree 100%. Lineages that are continued when a man outside the lineage marries a woman who IS from the lineage are not unheard of. We see such a case in 1 Chronicles 2: 34-35.
And yes, adoptions are a legal way to continue lineages. In some cases even servants, as it almost happened with Abraham and Eliezer of Damascus. Genesis 15:4
May the Almighty bless!
Dont know but i think Jesus thinks there are things more important than knowing his genealogy like keeping his commandments and things like that..christians were told to not give heed to fables and endless geneolgies which minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith and in titus avoid foolish questions geneolgies contentions and strivings about the law they are unprofitable and vain.. Jesus is king i just believe his words and the bible for some reason thats it.I believe it's the word of God
You didn't answer the question.
my geanoology also is leading to Adam as far as i know so its a bit of a bummer here, but hey .... but mixing poor Joseph into this already odd story is simply beyond freaking me.
We knew David from old testament had two sons: Nathan and Solomon
In luke the genealogy says that jesus is related to king David through his son Nathan
While in Matthew the genealogy says that jesus is related to king David through his son Solmon
So how could Jesus be traced back to both Nathan and Solomon at the same branch of the tree? Are you people stupid?
but if jesus is God son then why would Joseph even matter?
To fulfill prophesy. Every word God spoke was truth
It's all about genealogy. Whether through Nathan or Solomon, Jesus was a descendant of David. David a descendant of Judah. Judah one of the 12 son's of Jacob. Jacob the son of Isaac. Isaac the son of Abraham. Abraham a descendant of Shem. Shem a son of Noah. Salvation was planned from the beginning.
ISAIAH 43:11 says
I,I am Jehovah and besides me there is no Savior
ISAIAH 12:2 says
Jah Jehovah is my strength and my might and he came to be the salvation of me
Dont people undersand this Jewish priest named Jesus was betrayed by his own apostle and crucified
How could that be what GOD wanted?
He doesn't want sacrifice thats why he stoped all the sacrificial animals...but jesus is called the lame?
1CORINTHIANS 10:14-22 says what the nations sacrifice they sacrifice to demons
@@pearltears8039 Jesus wasn't sacrificed to God, he was executed by man. Jesus fulfilled The Law with his life and upon his death the spiritual debt was paid in full. Through Jesus, the veil standing between man and the Holy of Holies was rent in two, and a bridge leading from this fallen world back to the Father was formed.
LUKE 8:11 says
The Seed is the Word of God
REVOLUTION 19:13 says
He is called The Word of God
So as a WORD we should treat the Name Jesus
That is why it is the name above all names..
ACTS 2:21 says
And everyone who calles on the name of Jehovah will be saved
The Word Jesus means....
JEHOVAH IS SALVATION
academic.oup.com/library/article/19/2/131/5040809?searchresult=1 Annio da Viterbo states the two genealogies are related the direct descendances of Mary and St Joseph from king David. The author affirmed Jesus Christ God would have inherited the title of king of Israel by His Virgin mother, being conceived by the work of the Holy Spirit God.
The lineage of the Blessed Virgin Mary, unusual in the patriarchal society of Israel, was probably written to testify the divine conception of Christ, His being God, while St Joseph was His putative but non natural father.
Al Quran answered the genealogy "problem" of Jesus...peace be upon us all
Making no sense🤣🤣🤣 Jesus is born from virgin Mary which have no relation to joseph.but bible author confuse about Joseph
Maybe easy to just say that one of them got it wrong. As they were writing many decades after jesus.
yeah, you'd think
We knew David from old testament had two sons: Nathan and Solomon
In luke the genealogy says that jesus is related to king David through his son Nathan
While in Matthew the genealogy says that jesus is related to king David through his son Solmon
So how could Jesus be traced back to both Nathan and Solomon at the same branch of the tree? Are they stupid?
... some argues... possible explanations... a third solution... some suggests... more complex solutions... all of these represents possible, plausible solutions... in the end we don't know.
the perfect book of truth.
We knew David from old testament had two sons: Nathan and Solomon
In luke the genealogy says that jesus is related to king David through his son Nathan
While in Matthew the genealogy says that jesus is related to king David through his son Solmon
So how could Jesus be traced back to both Nathan and Solomon at the same branch of the tree? Are they stupid?
Why was this nessesary? Was Joseph then the father of Jesus? Or he adopted Jesus.. So Jesus can not have his roots in Joseph... So was Mary a jew then? Then Jesus is a jew through his Mary..
I agree with this explanation. Supposedly though the Matthew genealogy tunes in to the divine sense of Jesus' birth, also may alchemically be related to ancient wish craft.
Did he say Jesus parents Mary and Joseph?
Nothing matches from Chronicles all you have to do is look they are completely different, Obviously it's not going to go to Jesus as he wasnt born at this point but go back the both lines going back all the way to Adam through Abraham Or Abrah should be exactly the same . It doesn't take a Genius to see that nothing matches. Well maybe it does ;))
w 1:18-21 KJV
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
Jesus didn’t have a linage
If he did then who would die for his sin
Mary carried the seed of Jesus in human form by the holy spirit
But Mary is from Asher tribe
The only words that really make sense in everything you said are your last words, namely:
"in reality we do not know".
Both genalogies have no meaning, because no one can inherit in Jewish tradition, a throne by the part of a mother (women) or by the part of a stepfather.
A man who does not have a biological father cannot give up an earthly throne in Jewish tradition.
So the genealogy of Matthew and Luke, are vain genalogies because they are invented only for legitimizing Jesus with something impossible for him because he had no biological father.
All the rest are just speculations, without any value. You are clashing (you give each other headings) because you are in a dark place, because you lack the light of truth.
But jesus never came to inherit an earthly throne though? the jews didn't had a king in that era, they were under the Roman authority... the throne of jesus is different as it is described as the throne of heaven, jesus was never been claimed to be an earthly king...
If are talking in the context of Torah, there is no provision for how the royal line is supposed to pass. In fact, the northern Kingdom demonstrates this due to its broken lineage. Whatever you are referring to as "tradition" is irrelevant because much of what we refer to as Jewish tradition was codified later in history, specifically beginning during the exile. If Jesus is the Son of God than that is enough to legitimize his kingship. As an Aside, Luke's gentile audience could have cared less whether Jesus was of royal lineage, the purpose of the genealogy is to show His humanity, and absence of nephalim blood.
Mary was with child while engaged to Joseph if Jesus came thru Joseph that wouldn’t be virgin birth , so I’m saying Jesus would have had to come thru Mary’s linage back to David
Mother does not inheret her lieage to her children. Numbers 1:18.
He said these are probable possible solutions... Solutions to what the problem of two genealogies that make no sense.....
The more probable solution is to say that it's fake and not real and throw it in the trash that's the more probable
1:40
Misgendered Mary?
This was a great video man, thank you much! Have a great day.