Why is Jesus' Genealogy Different in Matthew and Luke
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2014
- In this video, I explain why Jesus' family tree is different in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. The main difference has to do with Matthew.
For more information, see my blog post on this topic: tinyurl.com/l63autn
THE ANSWER: There's a youtube video by Michael Rood that says according to Hebrew original language used in Matthew 1 the man Joseph was not referred to as husband but as FATHER. So the Joseph in Matthew genealogy was Mary's father making Mary the 13th generation, then Jesus the 14th generation. He said this was just discovered few years ago. This sounds like the perfect answer...In Luke, it explains Joseph's genealogy as emphasized from the very beginning but the difference is that while Matthew showed lineage through Solomon, in Luke it showed lineage THROUGH ANOTHER SON OF DAVID whose name was Nathan and was BORN before Solomon ( 2 Samuel 5:14 ). Luke being a Gentile used modern genealogy by putting every name while Matthew ( being a Jew and a Levi - his name was really Levi ) used ancient genealogy emphasizing significant characters in the genealogy dynastic timeline instead of all of the above like what Luke did....Matthew being from a Levi tribe also had an access to the records of families of Jewish genealogy kept inside the Temple which were all BURNT during the destruction of the Temple by Titus in 70 A.D...Today only the New Testament has existing record of Jewish genealogy of the Messiah, whose name is Yeshua ( Jesus ), and none of the Jews today or in the future will be able to prove a Davidic line because all the records were destroyed in 70 AD but the New Testament have authentic records of Jesus as descendant of King David through Solomon under Mary's lineage and through Nathan - another son of David - under Joseph's lineage.
thanks for this answer
maret caplan
Where's your evidence that Luke was a gentile...
maret caplan Matthew couldn't have been Mary's genealogy because Solomon is named in that account and his bloodline was cursed...
So the God did a mistake. He didn't know how Joseph was related to Jesus.
@@truthful8292 no God didn't make a mistake. This book was around for thousands of years more than we wore but less lazy people who actually read And rewrote this book my hand over and over because they don't have smart phones and computers. They wouldn't continue to pass it down if they saw fault in it
Thanks, well done. This had been a puzzle for me for many years, but it makes sense now that I realise that some names are simply missed. Hence 'Jacob fathered Joseph' is correct but there were one or more generations in between them.
Did you use Keynote to make this?
I marvel that you are here asking about his video tools rather than weighing in re: the history according to Eusebius. What gives? Do you favor a different explanation now?
Thank you so much, it was much easier to understand and remember and most importantly appreciate genealogy which was really hard to just have a look :)
The beat of the music got me moving
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
Amazing!
Yerushalayim B.
Why in Matthew’s genealogy do you have a space between David and Solomon? Seems you should have lined up Solomon from Mathew’s and Nathan from Luke’s. Thoughts?
Given the number of names, it was the best way to do it - you're right it isn't exact :-)
Brilliant.
Based on the principle of Isaiah 28:10, a prophecy of (4) certain families mourning at Christ's crucifixion in Zechariah 12:12 - 13, I believe identifies the parental lineages of Jesus the Christ. The 'House of David' & the 'House of Nathan' (from the Matthew & Luke genealogies) would be of Joseph's father & mother, respectively; and The 'House of Levi' & the 'family of Shimei" would be of Mary's father & mother, respectively.
Why do one book have jesus born before 4BC and the other book have him born after 6 AD?
Halleluyah 🔥🔥🔥
One possibility is that in Matthew is the genealogy that begat Joseph, while Luke has the genealogy for his legal father.
Perhaps Eli married then died without having a son, so his brother would have married her and the first he begat would be the son of Eli.
So they would have had different father's if one was born then his father died, so the mother would have been able to marry outside her husband's family.
sounds like pure speculative apologetics to me
@@genericuser-1 yup, I thought that was clear...
Luke is Mary's genealogy but Joseph's by marriage
@@Scott23882 except it doesn't say that, someone just made that up because they wanted an explanation.
@@rickandrygel913 Joseph was not the father but was married to Mary
You can’t trace the genealogy through Nathan or Mary....how can you establish Jesus tribal lineage that way and it must go though Solomon.
Mary is not mention. Luke has Nathan but Matthew Solomon .
I just found the answer 10 days ago. We are all misleaded thinking that Luc is a genealogy. It is not. The greek doesn't even say "son of", it just lists the names. Thinking about what it could be, i looked at the context. It's about the holy Ghost coming down on Jesus. Why, because Joseph just died of course. It's the spiritual heritage. From God blown into Adam and now coming on Jesus. Just like with the spirit going from Elijah to Elisha. God bless you all. Jesus blew his spirit on us when he left, that's why he had to leave.
Anne-Lise et Daniel
ruclips.net/video/U3bsAMyRwbw/видео.html
All this tells me is that nothing is as it seems. Which weakens my faith in what I’ve read.
Mary's father could have been named Joseph. So that would not discredit that one genealogy is from Mary's side and the other is from Josephs. Or one could be talking about Josephs in-laws on Marie's side.
Yes, other's have suggested it as well. That still leaves the issue of missing generations though...
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.
So that's how you get the one born before 4 BC and the other after 6AD. They was 2 different babies... Makes sense.
What else is wrong about the bible?
@@defenestratefalsehoods They got born only several months apart from each other, not years. One of them in their house in Betlehem before Herod has died (and thus the family had to escape to Egypt), the second one in the manger in Betlehem after Herod's death (that family returned to their home town of Nazareth after).
But this does not make Bible wrong. It only makes some of our interpretations of it wrong. Matthew and Luke simply describe different families when talking about nativity of Jesus.
@@elestir it was more then 7 months. try 10 years. When you match the bible to known history it always fail.
Matthew 2, says Jesus was conceived during the reign of Herod and was a young child when mary and Joseph fled the country. Herod died in 4 BC. In Luke 2 after Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6 AD(actual history that can be proven) mary and Joseph went back for the census while she was pregnant. Jesus was born before 4BC and still in the womb for the census in 6 AD.
That would make the bible wrong because the story of jesus was suppose to be about 1 person not 2.
if they are both from joseph not Mary. Then why they have different ancestor from David's son?
the other one starts with Solomon (Matthew) son of David and the other (Luke)starts with Nathan son of David
porque e tudo treta
Enjoyed the video but the music distracted me. Thanks for the video.
It’s either you believe Jesus is the messiah, God, etc or you don’t! That’s a choice you have to make....you can believe the genealogy or don’t.....haters are gonna hate no matter what.....Thank you Jesus for saving me! You are the Messiah, son of God and my Lord and Savior!
You either accept that some part of bible is corrupted and Islam came to correct the original message from God and be Muslim OR continue believing in the corrupted principle of God (Trinity) that was made by the help of Satan.
Amen brother!
Yup, your salvation is dependent on your acceptance of Jesus and the Gospel... some of the other parts of the Bible can make or break someone's faith. For me, it's the prophecy that has come true in recent years that locked me in for good. For others it may be different. But these are important topics to discuss ans parse out.
Who was joseph's father, heli or jacob?
Your question I think assumes exactly what I am denying- that these are bloodline genealogies that we think of in the modern sense. I don't think this is at all what Matthew is doing. So, because I think Luke is attempting a more traditional bloodline genealogy, I think Eli is more likely to be Joseph's father, though some scholars think Luke may be actually giving Mary's genealogy.
ruclips.net/video/U3bsAMyRwbw/видео.html
Great explanation and biblically consistent too! I can see now why it is 14 generations each in Matthew. But what about the fact that Jesus's grandfather's names are different in both books? How would u explain that?
Hi Vaishu, thank very much. I did not do a lot of work on the specific names in the list, more the form. But I would say that there are two options: The first is the possibility that Luke is tracing Mary's lineage (Which some scholars have argued). This would account for the discrepancy. The second option, which I think more likely, is that Luke more likely has the correct grandfather, and Matthew has simply not listed Jesus' grandfather (in the same way that he has neglected to include many of his lineage).
@@DannyZacharias how did Solomon and Nathaniel produce the same descendant zerubbabel?
@@mershomspencer830 they didnt, i think Matthew completely fabricated everything except for the verified genealogies in the Old Testament, and the rest was random names from Chronicles/Kings that Matthew believed was correct. I believe there was some scripture or something that verified Shealtiel and Zerubabbel being great great great whatever grandfathers of Jesus, and so Matthew included it in there because he knew about it, and Luke included it in there because his genealogy is correct
(Luke seemed to be writing to a friend who was a Roman official, meaning he most likely had access to Roman records if he was going to be writing a genealogy)
Can someone tell me where the 400yrs of Egyptian slavery fit into the genealogy?
leaves significant enquiries unanswered. Why does David's line from Nathan in Luke, and David's line through Solomon's in Matthew both reach Joseph? In fact the genealogy from David to Solomon etc before the exile is in the Bible. However I do not think the genealogy from David to Nathan & onwards fully exists right up to before the exile. So there has to be logical explanation for David's line via Nathan reaching the same point viz. Joseph
bfdsouza
ruclips.net/video/U3bsAMyRwbw/видео.html
Where and how did you find out all this info about scripture. Since I noticed the line of David through Nathan up to Jesus, none of the names appeared anywhere but in Luke, so how can it be trusted, and many more names listed, not just 14.
+Daniel Cerkoney I'm not understanding your question Daniel
+Danny Zacharias i'll make it simpler if I understood his point. Matthew links Jesus to David through Soloman (PBUT) while Luke links Jesus to David through another son older than Soloman who is Nathan (PBUT). How can Jesus be a direct descendant to two brothers!!! It's impossible.
+RossoneriFido That's the whole point of my video :-) Matthew is a dynastic genealogy, not a bloodline genealogy
Danny Zacharias Why is there a need of dynastic geneology? If it is a dynastic geneology why is Joseph in it? There's no need to mention such a geneology.
+RossoneriFido You would have to ask Matthew why he decided to do it? All we have is the Gospel. Matthew certainly felt the need. Jesus' Davidic kingship is certainly paramount for Matthew, so I'd say that is probably why :-)
Um. Joseph wasn't Jesus' blood father. You have to trace back from Mary, his mother, his blood.
@@zaeh5041The son carries on the Name.
Relax, it’s just a story. Besides, if Luke’s tracing back through mary, *why doesn’t he say that?!*
Another lie to cover up a screw up of the bible. I dont buy the buy-bull-$hit😁
@@pitamahbhism5766 "another screw up" right... you must feel very cool...
@@comradeandrov567 Yup
One genealogy through Miriam. The other through Yosef, the HUSBAND NOT FATHER of Miriam. Mistranslation. Pretty simple. No need to spiritualize anything away. Miriam's father and her husband were both named Yosef. Very common name
Good breakdown of Matthew, but Luke proves that the seed of the woman will break the curse, including the curse of Jeconiah. Also Jesus is the son of David thru the woman. So it's rhetorical device purposefully allows for son in laws.
Nice video.......
Wonderful wonderful wonderful job well done and I thank you for this wonderful drawing God bless you and your ministry from India
There are 2 jeconias. The clue is the zerubavel line, one had a father of podiah, that’s the one that the book of haggai talks about. The other zsrubavel is from the cursed line of jeconiah.
Mathew portrays Jesus as King of Kings! Lion of Judah while Luke portrays Jesus's manhood.....back to Adam.
This may shock your world but ancient church elders and Roman historians have testified that the original book of Mathew called the Gospel of the Hebrews did not have any geaneology or virgin birth narrative or shepherds or wise men. These were later added in the 2nd century ad by the beginnings of Catholocism
Doesn't shock my world because there is no evidence that anything you said is true :-)
Here's an excerpt from the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary on the Gospel of the Hebrews for you:
HEBREWS, GOSPEL OF THE. The title ascribed in antiquity to at least one and probably two Jewish-Christian narrative gospels that are extant in fragmentary form in a few quotations preserved in early church writings. Because of the scantiness of the citations and the uncertainty of their patristic source attributions, assessing these fragments is one of the most vexing problems in the study of early Christian literature. Determining the precise number of these gospels, identifying which fragments may plausibly belong to which text(s), appraising the nature and extent of those texts, and establishing the relationship of one gospel to another are extremely problematic tasks that continue to challenge scholars.
Jerome has preserved the most numerous references to and apparent quotations of Gos. Heb. In a series of writings that date from 386-415 C.E., he repeatedly maintained the view that there was only one Jewish-Christian gospel in existence, assigning all quotations known to him to this one document. When referring to this document Jerome regularly used variants of the title Gos. Heb., which he regarded as the original “Hebrew” or Aramaic Gospel of Matthew. However, critical scholarship has determined that Jerome almost certainly never saw an actual copy of this document but most likely knew of its existence from citations he had taken from other early Christian writers. Moreover, it is quite certain that Jerome never translated such a gospel into Greek and Latin, as he avers, for he misquotes certain texts that he allegedly had translated and assigns to this gospel several pericopes whose wording and construction are manifestly impossible in a Semitic language. Thus, in spite of himself, Jerome attests to the existence both of a Greek Gos. Heb. and another Jewish-Christian gospel, one which appears to be closely related to or identical with an expanded version of Matthew’s Gospel that was translated from Greek into Aramaic or Syriac. This expanded version of Matthew is customarily referred to today as the Gospel of the Nazoreans, a document whose original title is unknown but which seems to have been used since the 2d century C.E. by the Nazoreans, a group of Jewish Christians in W Syria. Although it is extremely difficult to identify with confidence which patristic quotations may belong to which gospel, it is not possible to assign all of the extant quotations to only one text. In fact there can be no doubt that another, completely different Jewish-Christian gospel was in circulation in the early Church, for Epiphanius (late in the 4th century) has preserved a few quotations of the so-called Gospel of the Ebionites, a harmony, composed in Greek, of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (and, probably, the Gospel of Mark as well). Therefore, the testimony of Jerome notwithstanding, there were at least two and most likely three Jewish-Christian narrative gospels in antiquity, one of which was composed in Greek and entitled Gos. Heb. …
What if Luke simply thought the other genealogies were incorrect and "he" wanted to give his readers what "he" believed to be right account of Jesus' genealogy? ... This is supported by how Luke begins "his" Gospel: .... Luke 1:1'3 "1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus," ... Luke clearly tells the reader that "he" was writing to clean up some unorderly mess.
AY Blackie
ruclips.net/video/U3bsAMyRwbw/видео.html
2 TIM.3:16,17 & MT.4:4 EVERY SCRIPTURE GOD INSPIRED IS PROFITABLE. . .TO COMPLETE AND THOROUGHLY FIT FOR EVERY GOOD WORK. TO LIVE BY EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDED OUT OF HIS MOUTH - ISAIAH 55:11. DUE TO TRANSLATION ERROR, AND THE FACT EVERY WORD IN THE BIBLE IS NOT THE FATHER'S. FAITH CERTAINLY IS A "KEY" ELEMENT NEEDED TO ARRIVE AT, WHAT IS TRUTH. ISAIAH 46:10, GOD KNOWETH THE END, FROM THE BEGINNING. PROV.15:3 / MATT6:8 AND BEHOLDING ALL PEOPLES AND EVENTS, IS AWARE OF WHAT IS NEEDED. HEBREWS 11:6 - WITHOUT FAITH OR TRUST IN HIM WHO IS INVISIBLE - 1 TIM.1:17. WE ARE NOT PLEASING TO HIM. WHY HAVE ALL THE GENEALOGY ? TO CONFUSE US ? TRICK US ? SO WE WOULD FOLLOW TEMPORARILY ? LATER TO DISCOVER, AND WALK AWAY ? LUCIFER PUT DOUBT INTO EVE'S MIND, BY PUTTING HIS GOD IN A "BAD LIGHT." AS THO GOD WERE WITH-HOLDING FROM THEM. SATAN "PAINTED" GOD WITH HIS OWN COLOR, AS IT WERE. POSSIBLY THE SO - CALLED, DISCREPANCY BETWEEN GOSPEL ACCOUNTS. IS ACTUALLY REVEALING THE WHOLE TRUTH ? WHERE IS IT WRITTEN THAT THE DISCIPLES REPORTS WERE TO BE IDENTICLE IN CONTEXT. THE PROPHETS OF OLD SPEAK OF THE SAME PROMISED ONE. BUT IN DIFFERENT DESCRIPTIVE SYMBOLS, AND PHRASEOLOGY. YOU KNOW, IT IS A MAPLE TREE; BUT EVERY LEAF IS DIFFERENT MAKING UP THE WHOLE* TREE. TREE OF LIFE. JOSEPH IS OF ROYAL LINEAGE. BY MARRIAGE, THE CHOSEN VIRGIN OF ISA.7; BECOMES ROYAL FAMILY. SO THAT HER PROMISED MIRACULOUS "SEED"- GEN.22:18/GAL.3:16. IS GUARANTEED A KING. KING OF THE JEWS, AND THE REST OF US, BY FAITH. FAITH/TRUST IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THINGS HOPED FOR, THE CONVICTION OF THINGS YET UNSEEN - 1 JOHN 3:2 AND JUDE 24. AND GOD WILL AWAKEN THE MULTITUDE THAT SLEEP IN THE DUST OF THE EARTH SOMETIME FUTURE DANIEL 12:2; SO THOSE WHO DID NOT YET, HEAR THE GLAD-TIDINGS WHICH SHALL BE UNTO (*ALL*) PEOPLE. CAN HEAR IT AND FROM JESUS - JOHN 5:28 & ACTS 3:22. IT IS GOD BEING TRUE TO HIS WORD, GLAD-TIDINGS instead of the t.v. news THAT SHALL BE UNTO ALL*** PEOPLE. HE UNDERSTANDS, THAT DOUBTS ASSAIL US. SATAN DOES NOT WANT ANY TO COME TO A KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH. SO CONTINUE ON MY GOOD NEIGHBORS, PURSUE TO KNOW AND TO DO JAMES 1:22,25. AMEN.
I'm not sure I unsderstood the geniology of jesus through your comment but it still was a very good one and sent me into amazing journey through all verses you mentioned, thank you and amen brother.
Matthew & Luke' geneologies do not conflict. They are different because they are the geneologies of 2 different people; Mary & Joseph. The genealogical list in Matthew, from David to Jacob-Heli, spanning about 1000 years, contains 27 generations at 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. They both descend from David to Zerubbabel. 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. They diverge from Zerubbabel's sons; Abiud & Rhesa. Matthew goes from Abiud-- Mary's line. Luke goes from Rhesa--Joseph's line. Mary & Joseph were also related. Joseph was Mary's great-aunt Gadat's son. Also, Joseph's father's name was Heli. He was the Jacob Patriarch, so his title was 'Jacob'. Hence, Jacob-Heli.
so jesus family tree goes straight up? Incest was the key because the family lines would split and come back together.
You say that Luke's version being the line to Mary makes no sense. But one main theory for the difference is that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, making Heli Mary's natural father. Our debut poster at PosterProfessor.com, "From Adam to Jesus" depicts this view, but it also makes apparent one of the objectives you raised; that there are many more generations in Luke's version than in Matthew's. So in the end, who can say? Interesting issue.
Assuming Luke had in mind to trace Jesus' biological ancestry, since he goes back to Adam, Joseph must been the son-in-law of Heli.
ok but Joseph would not be the son of Heli then, he would still be the son of Jacob. he would be the "son-in-law" which is not even in the Greek translation of the bible as far as I know, and I also know they definitely had a word for that, so...
although nobody can say for sure, I agree with this video the most
The attempt to place Jesus in the bloodline of David?
I am slowly beginning to believe this.
The thing that i am focused on is the contradictions in the New Testament.
You will never get the right answer unless you realize there is contradictions.
Think of the fact that there was nothing written at the time of Jesus.
Healings, Miracles, Feeding Multitudes, Mind Reading, Walk on Water.......
The gospels are simply folk stories.
It seems unbelievable that nobody would have carved it in stone, like Egypt.
I would love to be proven wrong but the apologetics are lame ( more questions than answers)
Sorry. If Joseph shares no blood relation to Jesus - it is the blood lineage of Mary that we need to know. Joseph was an adoptive father sharing NO blood relation. Where can I find info about the MOTHER MARY'S line.?
Of course Joseph shares no blood relation to Jesus !! That is the point of a virgin birth :-) I do agree though that Mary's lineage may also be important. There is an article by Markus Bockmuehl that you may be interested in. dx.doi.org/10.1093/jts/flr101
Luke 3 is Mary's through Nathan not Solomon and h e l i is Mary's father everybody thinks he lie is Joseph's father but it's Mary's father Joseph's father was Jacob the Bible in Matthew one
A MAN who was born in a miracle have a father?
yup
Just to Correct you. Jeconiah is called Johanan in the Old Testament. Johanan is the SON of Josiah. Johanan had his name changed to Joconiah. It says The Son of Josiah, Jeconiah and his Brothers. The SONS of Josiah were Johannan...Shallum, Zedekiah and Jehoaikim.
Jehoaikim had a son, Johoachin who is different from his Uncle. But Jeconiah that Matthew is Speaking of is Johanan in the Old Testament. You can further Reference the fact that Johoaichin the Son of Jehoakim does not have "BROTHERS". He only has ONE Brother.
Which if Matthew intended to be speaking of the Grandson of Josiah he would have said "AND HIS BROTHER".
But He did not.
Further proof the Son of Jehoaichin does not have a Son
17 The descendants of Jehoiachin the captive:
Shealtiel his son, 18 Malkiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama and Nedabiah.
19 The sons of Pedaiah:
Zerubbabel and Shimei.
According to the Bible the Grandson of Josiah, Jehoaichin's Son PEDAIAH has a son Zerubbabel
Matthew is talking about the Zerubbabel who is the Son of Shealtiel, NOT Pedaiah.
The Jeconiah who is the SON of Josiah.
Not the Grandson of Josiah.
Also Johanan, the SON of Josiah is never mentioned with any Curse...
Josiah had four sons: Johanan, Eliakim (Jehoiakim), Mattanyahu (Zedekiah), and Shallum (Joahaz).
Jeconiah also known as Jehoiachin was the son of King Jehoiakim, and the grandson of King Josiah.
this add more proof that they were real people and this is not some made up story in the bible... a real personality instead of something someone throwed in there
WHAT !!!!!
you say gospels were inspired by God
the SAME GOd inspired these people who wrote these things ?
why then there is differences ? if the same God inspired people ?
stop saying than the gospels is inspired word of God
you clearly see these differences it's from people prespective hence it's not God words
That still doesn’t answer the question, in Matthew’s gospel it goes back to Solomon then David and in Luke’s it goes back to Nathan then David, we know for sure that both Solomon and Nathan are mentioned in the OT, having this info your documentation doesn’t it any clearer.
"Wanted to trace his genealogy back to Adam and god" say what? I thought everybody was supposed to trace back to Adam then god, that logic should work on any line.
No some would come from bloodline of cain and others from seth
Yes, you're correct. The point is one point that is made amongst many that build toward Luke's Christology
@@ishika9920 still back to Adam...
@@ishika9920 0p)1@1
Focus of Luke's account all of Jesus's
What about the FACT that Joseph was not Jesus father full stop?
I think I made that pretty clear in the video, no? I talk about it more in my published dissertation as well - as do many other NT scholars.
I will tell you the truth! Genealogy is only tracked by the father of children so in Luke, Joseph is listed as the child's father, not Mary even though its Mary's genealogy. Then Mary's father is Eli! Eli's father is Matthat and so on. Remember that John the Baptist (the reincarnation of the prophet Elijah) came from Elizabeth (Mary's cousin) and not much comes from Joseph's side of the family during Jesus' time!
Richard Leal
This is interesting and it does kinda make sense... I’ll have to look into it some more.
ruclips.net/video/U3bsAMyRwbw/видео.html
Btw John the baptist is not a “reincarnation” he came in the spirit of Elijah. He is not the Elijah of the OT but is Elijah in Spirit.
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?
WE ARE THE 14TH generation UNTO Christ.
If you can fabricate a man to be a son of God you can fabricate anything.
Zatoichiable A fabrication? ruclips.net/video/HUs8f-lphec/видео.html
Demon
So, Matthew structured his genealogy so each section had fourteen names, AND we're supposed to count David twice so we'll have fourteen names. In the Aramaic version of "Matthew", Joseph is called Mary's "guardian"--not husband--which makes the math work out just fine; and, there are no exegetical hoops to jump through. Another Joseph--the one in Luke--was her husband.
First, the Aramaic isn't the original, so I'm not sure why that would matter.
But let's say that guardian is correct - how would this make the math work?
Danny Zacharias
From www.peshitta.org/initial/peshitta.html. Quote: In reference to the originality of the Peshitta*, the words of His Holiness Mar Eshai Shimun, Catholicos Patriarch of the Church of the East, are summarized as follows:
"With reference to....the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision." (* "Peshitta" is the name for the Aramaic version.)
Regarding Matthew 1: The Aramaic text is probably referring to a situation that has been repeated throughout history in all cultures-it was so common that Matthew seems to have felt that it didn't require explanation. The parents die and leave their children orphaned, who then become the wards of a close relative--usually an aunt or uncle. Since Joseph was Mary’s uncle (the son of Mary’s grandfather, Jacob) he represents another generation and the third group of generations now numbers 14 also. (Mt. 1:17)
david mike While I respect your opinion, an Aramaic original goes against all of our manuscript findings and the work of textual criticism. A degree from the leader of a church does not override the results of research by textual scholars.
Your answer for the 14 generations still doesn't make sense. Are you saying you count Mary? Joseph is already in the count
Danny Zacharias
When it comes to textual criticism, the West has its version; and, the East-just as faithfully-has theirs. However, in fairness, I have to ask myself why did Rome commission Jerome to translate a Latin version of the Greek texts right in the midst of finalizing an agreement on what constituted a canonized “New” Testament? That would certainly confuse things wouldn’t it? In addition, we all remember how open the Roman church was to sharing these works with the common people.
My only point here is that, on the subject of Jesus’ lineage, the Aramaic makes more sense than the Greek/Latin/Old English version.
Using Ockham’s razor as a guide, the simplest understanding of the material presented is that Mary’s parents died and she was raised by Joseph, her father’s brother. This would make Jacob her grandfather and 11th generation from the exile; her father-Joseph’s brother-would be the 12th generation; then Mary (13), and Jesus (14).
Joseph is in the count already-as you say-but he would be the same generation as Mary if they are spouses; and, so, we are one short.
david mike I'm not sure what your point is in the first paragraph. But again, we'll have to agree to disagree. It is very easy to dichotomize east to west. This is a weak argument. Show me early manuscripts of the Aramaic that pre-date our Greek findings. Show me also some legitimate textual scholars who argue this position.
Ockham's razor only works if it fits the actual facts. You have, from what I understand, a single word from the Aramaic upon which you hang the idea that Joseph raised Mary.
But even if this somehow were the case, your suggestion doesn't solve the 14 issue, which you recognize. Which in the end doesn't even help us understand verse 17.
Luke emphasize geneacology to mary and mathew mention geniacology of joseph
He explained this in the video.
The reason why they are different because...they aren’t the same. One is Mary’s the other is Joseph’s. The error more than likely occurred in an early copy of a Greek manuscript. I have manuscripts that plainly state Yoseph father of Mariam. With also clear up the problem with the fourteen generations.
P.S. GALATIANS 3:29 AND FOR AS MUCH AS YE ARE CHRIST'S, THEN YE ARE ABRAHAMS SEED, AND HEIRS ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE - OF GENESIS 22:18. BEING CHRIST'S PLACES ONE ALSO INTO THE ROYAL FAMILY - EPH.2:11,12,*19* AND 1PET.2:5,*9 AND REV.5:9,10. THUS THE FUTURE SERVICE FOR THE "FAITHFUL"- REV.17:14, IS TO BLESS ALL NATIONS OF THIS EARTH; WITH THE REMOVAL OF SIN AND DEATH. SO IT CAN BE " ON EARTH, LIKE IT IS IN HEAVEN" - MATT.6:10 - THERE ISN'T ANY SIN OR DEATH IN HEAVEN.
Joseph did not father Jesus, how can Jesus' royal bloodline follow Josephs??
One is the devil or is moms
My question would be why do the genealogies matter at all?
to place him in the family line of David
To place who in the family line of David?
@@TheJimtanker Well Jesus. But the video doesn't dive deeply into that. I tackle the issue in more detail in my published book
The genealogies are patriarchal. They literally cannot trace lineage from David to Jesus.
@@TheJimtanker When my wife married me, she took my name, as did my kids. They became part of my family line. This is part of a patriarchal heritage. Mary was his wife. Joseph intended to divorce Mary (i.e. remove him from the family) and Matthew tells us the angel prevented Joseph. This was how Jesus was born into Joseph's family.
If you are talking straight blood-quantum lineage from Joseph…well of course not. The story say it was a virginal conception. (Though there have been suggestions that Mary is in the family line of David as well)
So is Jesus' genealogy through David's son Solomon or through David's son Nathan? It can't be both.
You're right Ken. I thought I was clear enough in the video, but to reiterate: Matthew isn't giving a bloodline genealogy. It is a dynastic genealogy, tracing dynastic succession
Danny Zacharias Except that is not what Matthew actually says. It sounds like you are trying to treat the bible as a history book when it's not. It is simply one of the many contradictions within the bible. Nothing more and nothing less.
What do you mean by "treat the bible as a history book" ? I'm often charged with specifically NOT doing that :-) It I read it woodenly and literally then yes it is a contradiction. The very specific play on numbers and the obvious chronological gaps seems to make it clear he is not doing a simple bloodline genealogy. Just dismissing it as a contradiction is a non sequitur I'm interested in what Matthew is doing as an author with this genealogy
The gaps were placed there to attempt to get groupings of 14 generations. Either way, the most common definition of "ἐγέννησεν" is a blood descendant. You can use the more metaphorical definition if you want, but there is no evidence that was the intent of the author of Matthew.
Well, I provided evidence that is convincing for me and others, but not for you - which I can appreciate, but I don't think there is "no evidence."
The language of sonship is used of kings and gods frequently. More specifically, the same verb is used in the LXX of Ps 2:7, so there is precedent for the metaphorical usage.
Josiah had four sons: Johanan, Eliakim (Jehoiakim), Mattanyahu (Zedekiah), and Shallum (Joahaz).
Jeconiah also known as Jehoiachin was the son of King Jehoiakim, and the grandson of King Josiah.
Jesus Father is GOD ...Mother is Mary therefore theres something passed down thru her bloodline ..i remember a study i saw on that but ok let me watch it again haha! God Bless You i need a refresher
Maybe no music next time? It will much easier to hear you and process the material, without the music competing with you.
There are huge problems you avoided totally.
1) IF Luke is giving Mary's linage, why does Luke give her father's name as Eli or Heli when tradition says it was Joachim or Jacob which is what Matthew says Jesus' Grandfather was called?
2) Even if they Both skipped a few generations here and there, then why not say so. And Don't say "That's they way the ancients did genealogies, because that simply is not true elsewhere in the bible and Matthew was very Jewish.
3) Josephs linage would be worthless for proving a genetic inheritance from David. If you are trying to prove the right to a throne you cannot skip generations at all.
4) If Either Mary or Joseph were the direct lineal heir of ANY Davidic line, wouldn't they be pretty well known in the Jewish community, especially id it was the direct ROYAL line??? Wouldn't even the Romans know that??
5) Both Luke and Matthew trace The line through Salathiel and Zorobbable But Salathiel has a different father in each list and Zorobbable has a different son and neither of those sons match Z's sons in I Chron 3:16-24. If you are going to skip some generations for a list numbe, that is a real odd place to skip since the sons of Z are the last definite names we have in that line either on the OT or in josephus.
6) If you deliberately skip some names to get to a "sacred number" thaen that number was clearly not there in the first place and Matthew is lying to make a false point. I'd frankly rather he was just wrong and forgot a few.
this is the problem with mythology and having more then 1 writer. Everything gets mixed up and you end up with people saying he was god's son then some other writer throw in a family line from Joseph as his father.
One book has jesus born before 4 BC and the other after 6AD.
Then the religion claim it all say the same thing when it dont.
@@defenestratefalsehoods Bubba, you miss the real point of the story of Jesus. Unless you are Jewish, why do you care when Jesus was born or who his granddad was?. Only 2 of the 4 gospels bother with that and Paul never mentions it. You are looking at the wrong end of his life. The important stuff all happened in the last 3 years of his life - Healing cripples, raising the dead, teaching moral righteousness, fighting religious corruption. Dying for our sins (anyone can say that) BUT raising from the dead is a one and done. All 4 gospels tell that story pretty consistently. If you accept that, why would you need to know his linage to follow him as God, Lord and Savior?
@@johnbreitmeier3268 because it is a made up story of a savior that is not needed. The biblee has a 6300 year old universe which makes it mythology.
No Adam or Eve means no original sin which means no need for a savior.
Have you ever put the bible on a time line???
Have you ever wondered why the bible dont mention the large meteor that struck the earth killing most of the life and starting the ice age???
How about the fact that the flood story took place 4300 years ago during a time we know several civilizations recorded their history???
This is mythology and Christians want to force it on people while they degrade people for what???? Mythological stories of a failed god that cant be proven.
Jesus didn't die for our sins, he died for the sins of Israel.
Acts 5:31 It is he whom God has exalted at his right hand as Ruler and Savior, so as to offer repentance and the remission of sins to Israel
But Jesus name was not Jesus back then
Jesus' name in Hebrew was “Yeshua” which translates to English as Joshua and that would be marry husband
You never answered the question.
Don't forget that the last names of Jesus grandfather and father is Jacob and Joseph which is the patriarch of Israel.. and Jesus is representative of Ephraim or Joseph "eldest" son.. in blessings.. so kingdom of Ephraim aka. Israel is established by Jesus as the King of Israel and the annointed one of Israel..
Makes no sense. A grandfather is only 2 steps away from the person in case. A grandfather is as important as the father in ANY family tree. Check your birth certificate. The authors go back to more than 14 generations but skips the 2nd one? Makes no sense at all. Any explanation doesn't hold true for more than 5 seconds...
Still seems like you are coming at it as a bloodline genealogy. My argument is that it is not.
Because the whole world is deceived by Satan the devil. He's the master of Deceit remember.
Ahh...yes, of course. It is the devil that God created so that humans can't attribute evil directly towards the same God that actually created everything(good and evil)
HELP!! I NEED HELP WITH THISHello there, you catched my attention with this one.... I've read the bible and you won't believe but...I got to compare very detailed Luke (who was this Luke, anyway? - phisycian and doctor or maybe even philosopher???) and Mark ( who was also not a direct witness of Jesus, and more of that, was rejected by Paul - Acts 15:37-39) with direct apostles of Jesus (Matthew and John which were with Jesus and witnessed Him in what He did and said)But first of all you have to be aware that the most efficient tehnique of devil (cos the truth cannot be just earesed!) was always to mix the truth with the lie... so diversion, controversion and deceit was ''planted'' inbetween the Gospels!!! Don't be surprised, Jesus told even to Peter ''get behind Me, Satan!'' More than that Luke (who was not with Jesus to hear or to see) affirmed things beeing said by Jesus which no other direct apostle of Jesus affirmed, and more he even contratidcted them!Ok, let us have a better look into details.Luke CONTRADICTS Jesus Himself!! Luke 12:14 - Luke 12:51John confirmed that Jesus brought division - John 9:16When it's about to take the cross and fallow Jesus, according to Matthew - 16:24-25 not any action of HATE is involved, but self denial. Well... Luke tells us that WE HAVE TO HATE EVERYONE in order to follow Jesus!!! Luke 14:26-27 Imagine that!!Luke 16:16 affirms that the prophets have ceased to exist once with John the Baptist and contradicts Matthew 5:17, Acts 15:32, Acts 21:9Luke & Mark contradict Matthew (one of Jesus's desciples!!) affirming that in the country of Gergesenes was only one possessed man when infact were two, but more than that Luke brings forth so many details till there that '' the one possessed man'' wanted to follow Him and Jesus didn't allowed him!! FROM WHERE LUKE BROUGHT THESE DETAILS when Matthew which was with Jesus didn't say anything about all these but he said that there were TWO POSSESSED MEN!!!Luke affirms that 10 Pounds were delivered to 10 servants - Luke 19:13 when infact the truth told by Matthew is that God gives to everyone after his abilities!! - Matthew 25:15Luke affirmed that the centurion didn't come himself to Jesus but he sent people two times to Jesus - Luke 7:3, 7:7, 7:10 instead of this Matthew tells us that Jesus meet and speak personally to the centurionLuke's relatation about the woman with the ointment is totally another - Luke 7:36-50 than John's and Matthew's - John 12:1-8, Matthew 26:6-12 it is no doubt that he is talking about the same woman John 12:7-8 and Matthew 26:11-12 proves that but Luke doesn't mention... hmmm And what Luke insinuates in 7:47 anyway?!? That in order to love much you have to sin much??As we can see in 2 Timothy 4:11 Luke and Mark were from the Paul's circle of apostles, and as we know the Gospel of Mark was based on Luke's.What we don't know is who was this Luke for real and what motivated him to get involved in christianity???Did devil used Luke for diversion and controverse... and the future Catholic Church???Anyway the Genealogy of Jesus is not the biggest ''question'' about this guy Luke, it is a start but the whole ''work'' of Luke is questionable!Search the Truth without fear!!!2Timothy 1:7Please anyone to answer about this matter.
Go to @NathanH83 for genealogy of Jesus
Paul travelled with Luke. God preserves his word. Do not let the devil deceive you by making you doubt everything in the bible. If one book has been corrupted, what makes you think you can trust any of them? And which ones? Luke wrote acts also. Maybe the entire bible is corrupted and the qu'ran is the real truth!
You see what happens when we follow these lines to the end? The devil wins. Do not be deceived brother.
To be king of the Jews, one has to be both the paternal and maternal son of David. God promised to give the throne to David's line forever. A king has to marry a Queen to have a legitimate son. In practice, this means that jesus's parents were related through their grandfather Matthan.Thus, both Joseph and Mary have descent from David, proving the kingship of Christ. Therefore, Joseph and Mary are 1st cousins--both of royal blood. Source: 1611 kjv bible with the pictorial family tree and royal genealogy preface.
Genealogy has nothing to do with Jewish tradition. Genealogy is governed by state law. The genealogy of Christ follows Levitical law from the old testament. Matthew shows Christ's genealogy through Joseph. Luke shows Christ's genealogy through Mary. Every king has to have a royal bloodline through both mother and a royal bloodline through father as well. An unpolluted royal bloodline is mandatory for both parents of a legitimate king. You can be a Jew without being a son of David, but a King of the Jews must prove descent from King David who slew Goliath the Giant.
Good attempt! But that does not explain why Matthew expunged 4 names in keeping the number 14 generations.
Expunged names : Jehoaikim, Amaziah,Joash and Ahaziah
+zahir omar Of course it explains it :-) He expunged 4 names IN ORDER TO KEEP the number of 14 generations. It is a selective genealogy
Danny Zacharias You say, It is a selective genealogy
I say, it can also be due to ignorance or deliberate deception.
The key word is beget which can not have dual meaning like 'son of',which may apply to adopted son or son-in-law.
+zahir omar "cannot have dual meaning" γενναω has a wider range of meaning then physical begetting - read a lexicon and do a word search - TDNT is good for this. You can see as a simple example 1Cor 4:15.
As far as whether it Matthew was ignorant of the genealogy or deliberately trying to deceive, You would have to make your case, and show me other scholars who say the same. Matthew is writing within the lifetime of those who knew Jesus, so the deception idea I think is a bad one. Moreover, early readers new the OT scriptures well and like us probably recognized he was selectively choosing names from 1 Chronicles 2. And since we see that he was choosing from 1 Chronicles 2, this is hardly ignorance.
Danny Zacharias Your say, "You can see as a simple example 1Cor 4:15. "
I say, "here the word father,though not the real father, was explained and justified in the verse itself.
The same way that we understand how God was the father of Jesus.
In the absence of any justified clause the word must be read in a normal usage.
Luke who gave a completely different genealogy, was quite frank when he said, He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph
Danny Zacharias how sad when you betray you’re own intellect to justify myths from people who were notorious of lying in that time .
this is easy david must have had two sons one named Solomon and the other Nathan, and remember GOD made the promise to eve that Jesus would come from her seed -meaning the egg, and since GOD caused the virgin to have a child he did not need to use joseph's seed or sperm. So I don't see a problem here.
Both can't be right .
@@Moodboard39 yes it can
bingo
This explanation is malarkey. Check out "Why are there two genealogies for Jesus according to Eusebius" by RUclipsr NathanH83. Bottom line Neither genealogy was for Mary, both were for Joseph. Either a made up explanation like this is correct or an early church father who claimed to have seen records kept by Jesus' extended family was telling the rest of the body of Christ a lie. If Mary needed to be a biological descendant of David in order to fulfill prophesy, the she was! This can still be true without her genealogy being recorded in the gospels. Check out the video, it's quite entertaining and edifying.
Thanks for your kind words - I haven't heard the word "malarkey" for awhile. I'm well aware of the Eusebius explanation. It is not an implausible explanation, but it only addresses the issue of the grandfather and great-grandfather of Jesus. What about the rest of the genealogy? Should we assume levirite marriages throughout the genealogy to account for the discrepancies? And what about the shorter list of names? The NathanH83 video does not address any of that.
I mention the possibility of one genealogy being of Mary, but only briefly. There have been arguments for it, but it doesn't really matter for the argument I've made in the video.
This was really interesting and helpful.
Mary Magdalene and Jesus
brittnay cattaneo never
Do you know that there is MORE!!than 14 G from Abraham to Jesus......so the number 14 is nothing!
+עמיחי אלימלך Yes of course, I explicitly show that in the video. I'm not sure why "14 is nothing" - wouldn't it follow that, given that there are more genealogies - then Matthew must be choosing 14 for a reason?
Danny Zacharias
ruclips.net/video/U3bsAMyRwbw/видео.html
1st of all, Jesus is not the son of Joseph and therefore isnt a descendant of David. Secondly, God recognises the reign of David's dynasty through Solomon, not Nathan (1 Chr 22:9-10) so the lineage according to Luke is wrong. What about that of Matthew? Matthew ignored a huge clue which makes Jesus ineligible to be inherit David's throne as it is said in the new testament. David's descendant Jechoniah (also called Jehoiachin) was cursed by God that none of his descendants will rule as David's successor (Jer 22:24-30). Jesus is a descendant of Jechoniah according to Matthew and cannot inherit David's throne.
Bernard darkwah here is the answer
ruclips.net/video/U3bsAMyRwbw/видео.html
Correct, just to establish Jesus earthy lineage, in other to trace his decent. Not that Jesus is the son of David. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, is the Alpha and the Omega. He was before David, Abraham, and Adam.
Me personally, i wouldn't call him "son of David", it is disrespectful, if you think deep about it.
Nice video btw. Thanks for sharing.
Ever notice how in the earliest gospel (Mark) Jesus never claims to be divine?
NO!!! THE MATTHEW HAS ONE NAME SHORT IS BECAUSE JOSEPH IS THE FATHER OF MARY!!!!!!!!!
Lmao
John 3:16: A fascinating plan of salvation
Who has not heard what has been called the “Gospel in a Nutshell?” If a verse is to be plastered on signs, it is John 3:16. Most do not know the meaning behind this cherished verse.
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16.
Jesus said we must also believe in the Father who spoke the complete word of God.
44 Then Jesus cried out, “Whoever believes in me does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. John 5.
The rabbit in the hat is the concept “believeth in Him.” Where is the diligence required to know God?
13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. Jeremiah 29. God.
Jesus teaches:
46 I have come into the world as a light(teach God’s word), so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.
Here we understand how Jesus defines believing in Him.
47 “If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day. 49 For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken. 50 I know that his command(God’s law) LEADS to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.” John 5:
John 5 explains what John 3:16 is actually stating. “Whosever believeth the words Jesus says and does them will have eternal life.” Who can think that believing in a god brings eternal life? Almost every human believes in a god or many gods. The difference between a Christian and an atheist is the atheist rejects one more god.
Jesus was saying, “I know that my Father’s commandments leads to eternal life.” vs50. This is achieved through believing and obeying and not just believing. James addressed very clearly that believing is not the key to salvation.
19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder. James 2.
John affirms the doctrine of Jesus.
3 Now this is eternal life: that they KNOW you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. John 17.
John qualifies what KNOW means so nobody can misunderstand.
“And hereby we do know that we KNOW him, if we keep his commandments.” 1 John 2:3.
If we do not keep God’s laws, we do not know Him and do not have eternal life because we are merely a gullible believer.
4 I have brought you(God) glory on earth by finishing the work(verifying God’s commands) you gave me to do...7 Now they(disciples) know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8 For I gave them the words(God’s law) you gave me and they accepted them...
The words of Jesus are the words of the disciples.
14 I have given them(disciples) your word and the world(Christian) has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world...20 “My prayer is not for them(disciples) alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their(Jesus's disciples) message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. John 17.
John makes it very clear those who do not follow the complete law and claim to know God are liars.
4 He that saith, I KNOW him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 2.
What if we just ignore a few laws? Jesus explains so there is zero doubt.
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5.
Jesus said if we do not obey the law, we certainly will NOT enter heaven.
James reiterates the words of Jesus further eliminating any remaining doubt that the complete law is required to please God.
8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. James 2.
12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom...
James verified God’s law gives freedom?
The writings below that Rome placed into a book and called scripture in the forth century is contradictory to God, Jesus and their disciples. These are written by Paul.
6 But now, having died to what bound us, we have been released from the Law, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. Romans 7.
14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. Romans 6.
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Galatians 5.
20 Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the Law. For the Law merely brings awareness of sin. Romans 3.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Romans 10.
39 Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses. Acts 13, Paul.
God spells out His remedy for salvation which is different than Paul’s saved by faith.
21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. Ezekiel 18. God.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. Ezekiel 36.
John the Baptist’s mother and father.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Luke 1.
The Preacher.
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. Ecclesiastes 12.
John.
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. Revelation 14.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome...1 John 5.
Jesus.
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.” Luke 10.
It is clear to see the doctrines of Paul are not the words from God. This is that deception of one who claimed Jesus returned. Acts 26:14,15. Jesus said do not believe Paul or you will be deceived. Matt 24:3-5,23-27.
Paul speaks a lot of religious mumbo jumbo often contradictory even with himself. Paul is all over the place allowing good men to draw opposite conclusions. This is a recipe for division as was prophesied about Paul in Gen 49:27.
The choice.
The church of Paul is divided and steeped in pagan traditions called the wide road. Those following Jesus please God by obeying His laws; They reject Paul’s writings as did the Ephesians. Rev 2:2. The house of Paul built upon the shifting sand is destroyed in the couple hours it took to write this.
21 Elijah went before the people and said, "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him." But the people said nothing. 1 Kings 18.
The people say nothing because they love the way of Saul. Paul’s dreams are contrary and loved. God provided a way that thrilled the heart of David, was taught by Jesus and echoed by the disciples.
Shall we discuss?
I enjoyed the video. But Jesus had no father among men.
I think Matthew's genealogy is for Mary and here's my explanation: (ESV) Matthew 1:16 says, "and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ." First thing, she's the 1st girl mentioned in this genealogy. The others before are guys & even all of Luke. Second, it says "of Mary, of whom Jesus was born". It's saying Mary gave birth to Jesus. The others say "the father of (insert name), & so on. Matthew maybe didn't want to say "the mother of" & just insisted on saying "gave birth" to say that it was Mary. It could be saying that Jacob is the father of Mary and it could mention Joseph either because he's a guy (like I stated above) or giving us a little intro to Jesus's parents. Lastly, like the video stated, Matthew's genealogy is more like history & Luke's is more like modern (this helped me (hopefully) prove my theory a lot). Matthew's goes from Abraham to Jesus (oldest to youngest), which gives us a better insight into the history. Luke's goes from Jesus to God (youngest to oldest) which is a modern timeline that doesn't have any little stories to it and goes straight to the point. Matthew's can be a little more complicated but if you connect the pieces together, you can come up with a conclusion like this. For the full list of each genealogy go to Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. If you oppose to my idea on this, please feel free to share what you think. Btw, hope some1 will answer dis question of mine: y does it say Seth iz da son of Adam. Isn't Adam n Eve's kids Cain n Abel? (Ik a lil off topic lol). May the Lord bless you all & I pray & hope that we all grow our relationship with God & more people give their lives to Christ Jesus❤❤❤
Hi Valerie. A couple issues with your suggestion. First, Mary isn't the first woman mentioned, she's the 5th.
The biggest issue, though, is that it seems pretty clear that Joseph is the specific name in the list, and the subsequent narrative in Matthew is to describe how Jesus is part of Joseph's family even though Joseph is not his biological father.
@@DannyZacharias then what about Luke's?
@@DannyZacharias and also (ik this might not help my case) but how did they mess up the grandparents. They're a much closer generation than the others. Matthew's implies that it's Mary's side
@@valerietimko9170 I think they are both genealogies of Joseph, with Luke be more exhaustive, and Matthew being dynastic. However, there is a good academic article that has argued that Luke's genealogy is Mary's (see Markus Bockmuehl, “The Son of David and his Mother,” 62 (2011), 476-93.)
@@valerietimko9170 So if you watch the video you see that I am arguing that Matthew is intentionally selective, focusing on dynastic succession. So Luke would be indicating Joseph's father, Matthew is choosing someone further back in the succession.
The difference in the genealogies are the most certain proof that these Gospels are wrong.
@@unam9931 Collyridianism was an alleged Early Christianheretical movement in pre-Islamic Arabia, whose adherents apparently worshipped the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus, as a goddess. The existence of the sect is subject to some dispute by scholars, as the only contemporary source which describes them is the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, published in approximately 376 AD.
ruclips.net/video/JBETIX98axc/видео.html
The many Christians tell a lie that Qur'an says that the Trinity means God, Jesus and Mary. Qur'an does not say that. It only says that God will ask Jesus in the day of Doomsday, did you say to the people to worship you or your mother.... Not about Trinity.
Sura 5 Verse 116 :
"And behold! Allah will say: O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? He will say: Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not
.....
Some people worshipped Mary as well. In fact...
the official rosary of the Catholic Church!
"Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, hail, our life, our sweetness, and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve! To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us; and after this, our exile, show us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary!"
They put Mary' pictures and idols in most of the Churches.
In the Arabia Collyridianism was an alleged Early Christian heretical movement in pre-Islamic Arabia, whose adherents apparently worshipped the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus, as a goddess. The existence of the sect is subject to some dispute by scholars, as the only contemporary source which describes them is the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, published in approximately 376.
This only about Worshiping Mary not including her as a person in Trinity.
ruclips.net/video/U3bsAMyRwbw/видео.html
@@tmk5 Sura 4:171 say not trinity ! According to the quran , author thinks Mary is the part of the Trinity lol desist: say not trinity lol
Mary is not part of the Trinity . Quran wrong or misunderstood what trinity is lol Allah should know that
You are very smart. I believe you are right, because when Christ come and reign, He will reign as King David.
I'm sorry but you count Jesus twice. Jesus the Christ and Jesus the King upon his return for the millennial reign. David is close but it's Jesus the King.
If you are ready to twist yourself into a pretzel and jump through a few hoops, you can legitimize anything🤣🤣🤣
This is only a lame justification. You do not present any evidence but only suppositions that are not supported by textual or archeological evidence. The most probable answer is that the authors of the gospels were based in oral transmition of legends that nobody bothered to corroborate. Until you find another independent document that can be used to link both genealogy all it is obvius that this is only your imagination trying to avoid the logical conclusion: They are really contradictory and not divinely inspired.
I assume you mean extra-textual (outside of Matthew), as the argument is entirely textual. Beyond confirming the existence of people, archaeology doesn't often help with genealogies. Why do you think that "The most probable answer is that the authors of the gospels were based in oral transmition of legends that nobody bothered to corroborate." Of course Oral transmission is involved, that is common knowledge. But it was a mixed media environment, with oral and textual media interacting and intersecting. For instance, Matthew is using Mark, and possibly Q. So it isn't as simple as you seem to be making it out.
Why do you think we need a document to link Luke and Matthew's genealogy?
I don't address the inspiration issue at all. I recognize Matthew for the literary scribe he is and trying to understand why the genealogy is this way.
What a dumb comment. God send prophets to the Jews and they never listened once. Typical behavior expected.
Get real. Most of these names, Jesus included, weren't even their actual names.
Huh?
@@DannyZacharias It's true. The original languages of the Bible were Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. English versions haven't been available until around 300 to 400 years ago. Jesus spoke Aramaic, and possibly some Hebrew. The Aramaic name for God is.... well, I'll let you look that one up.
@@railroadtrash09 I presumed you meant something more significant than that. I'm a seminary professor who teaches the original languages. The fact that the video is working with the English translations doesn't negate my argument. The English translation uses the transliterated names.
@@DannyZacharias Your name is Danny in every language. Somehow Joshua or Yeshua is now pronounced Jesus. His last name was never Christ yet Christians believe it was. Yahweh is now God among other things. In Jesus' name?? What? Who? That's my point.
@@railroadtrash09 Actually, on my trip to the middle east people pronounced my name differently (the A in my name). And you say "Somehow his name is". It isn't somehow. The NT authors intentionally chose Greek for their writing, and they transliterated his name as Ἰεσους. This then got transliterated in early vernaculars and made its way into English as Jesus.
You're probably right that some Christians think that Christ was his last name, but once they receive a bit more education in church, or just by reading the NT, they would quickly learn it's not.
I'm not sure what you mean about Yahweh
Abraham, Jacob and Issac never existed!!! They were just just characters in an allegory, it says so in the bible itself in galations.
:-) I think you better go back and read Galatians more closely
Jesus is counted twice because He died and rose again.
you miss the point jesus never had a earthly father take care you need more studying
Blah blah blah, Joseph was not , was not I repeat was not the father, Joseph had nothing to do with the Messiah, only to marry her , Mary's bloodline was of Judah , the key word is Judah, Joseph bloodline was not of Judah , therefore , the Messiah did not come from Joseph , Mary from the tribe of Judah , Joseph was not
That is a stupid statement when the bible made it clear that Joseph is of David thus of the tribe of Judah. Nothing of such was said about Mary.
@@a.ragguette4855 another idiot that believe what they're told, the Messiah come from the blood of Judah, David, Solomon, Mary, & Yeshua whom y'all call Jesus comes from Judah, when follow Joseph line it goes to Levi, white people have this thing a man should be the head, go study, idiot
Jesus and John the Baptist were more than distant cousins; they were half-brothers.
Just wasting time
Your mental gymnastics are epic. Now you leave us remaining Christians required to tell secularists that our time- lines are not representative of reality. How can we expect those same secularists to have to go this deep into the back story of our savior?? Really, it seems we have some thinking to do ourselves if we are accepting these "hidden knowledge" and "connections" between otherwise DIRECT lineage. We don't put uncle Larry, cousin Moe and brother in law Curly into our direct lineage back 14 generations! As Ricky Ricardo used to say to Lucy, "Honey you got some es-plaining to do!"
How about the fact jc never existed and both are a lie?
If you would like to hold this trendy yet historically untenable position, feel free. Not sure the point of posting it or trolling a video about Matthew's genealogy…
@@DannyZacharias untenable?..if you would show me evidence outside of the new testament the this person ever exisited i will accept your assertion this is a trendy topic..
Lots of stuff out there. amzn.to/2rTAGDm is one example. For a book not written by religious scholars, amzn.to/2OKnslA
Babylon to the messiah?
Israel is still waiting for their messiah!
Israel's messiah is still future!
The future earthly kingdom!
That will complete the 14th generation?
Just thinking ...!
;0)
Senseless and opinionated documentary.
Thanks for your thoughtful response :-)
Does son of God need any genealogy. These genealogies show how desperate Matthew and Luke were to prove prophecies of Old Testament. Clear proof bible is not from God.
Quran only says Jesus was son of Marry and that we all agree with. Truth stands out.