Steve: Two contradicting genealogies of Jesus?

answers1: The genealogies in Matthew and Luke are fabrications, so you
can't tell anything factual from them. Each of those writers wanted to
show that Jesus was descended from David, so they separately made up
the respective genealogies. That is why they contradict each other.
 
 
They each provided their fabricated genealogies as showing the descent
from David through Joseph, which would have been according to the
legal descent, since Joseph was the husband of Mary. 
 
Since the genealogies are contradictory, some Bible apologists try to
say that the genealogy in Luke is actually that of Mary. However, Mary
is not even mentioned in that genealogy. If that genealogy was that of
Mary, why doesn't her name appear in it? 
 
In any case, according to Luke, Mary was Elizabeth's cousin (suggenes
in the original Greek, which indicates a blood relative). Since
Elizabeth was of the priestly tribe of Levi, Mary would also have been
of that descent and could therefore not have been a descendant of
David. That is, if you believe what Luke says. 
 
That is especially relevant because Luke mentions Mary in the birth
stories much more than Matthew does. For example, instead of Joseph,
it is Mary who the angel appears to concerning the coming birth of
Jesus. There are also several other narratives about Mary, indicating
the importance that Luke gave her. In that case, why wouldn't he have
mentioned Mary in the genealogy if he intended it to be hers? 
 
It should be noted that Mary's name does appear in Joseph's genealogy
in Matthew, where it states that Joseph was the husband of Mary. 
 
Those who say that the genealogy in Luke is Mary's therefore have no
basis for saying that other than wishful thinking. 
 
But that is not all. Since @Lightning from the East brings it up, I
should comment about the virgin birth. 
 
The belief in the virgin birth was one of the myths that developed
about Jesus after his death on the cross. And it was a relatively late
one at that, because it is not known in the earlier Christian
documents. 
 
When Matthew wrote his gospel he tried to find something in the
scriptures to support the idea of a virgin birth. As a Greek speaker,
he used the Septuagint translation of the scriptures, but that
translation often did not convey the sense of the original Hebrew.
Furthermore, the idea of a virgin birth would have been foreign to the
Hebrews of the Old Testament time (it was essentially a pagan
concept), and the only passage Matthew could come up with was Isaiah
7:14. 
 
The prophecy in Isaiah 7:14-16 was about an event that would take
place in the near future from the time it was given, not hundreds of
years in the future. Furthermore, the woman spoken of was not referred
to as a virgin (which is bethuwlah in the original Hebrew), but rather
a young woman (almah in the original Hebrew) and there was nothing
unusual about the birth. As the prophecy said, by the time the child
who was to be born would be able to refuse evil and choose the good,
the land would be forsaken of both of its kings--again, an event that
would take place in the near future. 
 
But the point that needs to be emphasized is that Isaiah used the
Hebrew word for virgin (bethuwlah) in several other places in his book
(23:12, 37:22, 47:1, and 62:5), so why didn't he use it in 7:14 if the
woman was supposed to be a virgin? The answer is that the young woman
was not supposed to be a virgin as is clear from the context. 
 
Also, Jesus was not called Immanuel, which is what Isaiah said the
child would be called. 
 
What it all boils down to is that Matthew was trying to fabricate a
prophecy about the virgin birth (which, again, was itself just a myth
that arose in the years after the death of Jesus) from the Hebrew
Scriptures. But He got tripped up by the Septuagint translation, for
in that translation the Hebrew word for young woman got translated
into Greek with a word that was more ambiguous and could have been
taken as meaning virgin. 
 
Also, in several other places in the New Testament, the idea of a
virgin birth is negated. In Romans 1:3 and Acts 2:30, for example,
Jesus is described as being of the seed of David "according to the
flesh," which would rule out the idea of a virgin birth. 
 
The fact is that the stories of the birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke
are nothing but fabrications. They completely contradict each other.
 
 
Added 
 
For further information about the incompatibility of the birth stories
of Jesus, see my answer here. 
 
<a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Al_3XLNIMOXMvk0BBlzvuPXty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20120602070506AAgzrqj"class=Clr-b>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...</a>
 
 
 
Added 
 
And in case someone questions the historical references I provide in
that answer, see my answer here which also provides answers in
response to such questions.
answers2: TIME BEFORE & TIME AT & TIME AFTER CHRIST JESUS ASCENDED 
 
Matt.1:1-17, N. T. sends us back to O. T. people & time then, 
foward to Jesus was here and Jesus ascended, then time after 
Jesus that adds this time onto the age of the universe. 
 
Age 0000 - 0930, years (0130 - 0930)* Adam #1. Gen.5:3,5. 
Age 0105 - 0912, years (0130 - 1042)* Seth #2. Gen.5:6,8. 
Age 0090 - 0905, years (0235 - 1140)* Enos #3. Gen.5:9,11. 
Age 0070 - 0910, years (0325 - 1235)* Cainan #4. Gen.5:12,14. 
Age 0065 - 0895, years (0395 - 1290)* Mahalaleel #5. Gen.5:15,17. 
Age 0162 - 0962, years (0460 - 1422)* Jared # 6. Gen.5:18,20. 
Age 0065 - 0365, years (0622 - 0987)* Enoch #7. Gen.5:21,23. 
Age 0187 - 0969, years (0687 - 1656)* Methusaleh #8. Gen.5:25,27. 
Age 0182 - 0777, years (0874 - 1651)* Lamech #9. Gen.5:28,31. 
Age 0000 - 0502, years [1056 - 1558] Noah to Shem born. 
Age 0502 - 0600, years (1558 - 1656] FLOOD YEAR. Gen.7:6. 
Age 0600 - 0950, years (1656 - 2006)* Noah #10. Gen.9:28,29. 
Age 0100 - 0600, years (1658 - 2158)* Shem #11. Gen.11:10,11. 
Age 0035 - 0438, years (1658 - 2096)* Arphaxad #12. Gen.11:12,13 
Age 0030 - 0433, years (1693 - 2126)* Salah #13. Gen.11:14,15. 
Age 0034 - 0464, years (1723 - 2187)* Eber #14. Gen.11:16,17. 
Age 0030 - 0239, years (1757 - 1996)* Peleg #15. Gen.11:18.19. 
Age 0032 - 0239, years (1787 - 2026)* Rue #16. Gen.11:20,21. 
Age 0030 - 0230, years (1819 - 2049)* Serug #17. Gen.11:22,23, 
Age 0029 - 0148, years (1849 - 1997)* Nahor #18. Gen.11:24,25. 
Yrs 0222 + 1656= flood= 1878, Terah #19, + 130, Abraham born 2008. 
Age 0130 - 0205, years (1878 - 2083)* Terah #19. Gen.11:32. 
Age 0000 - 0075, years [2008 - 2083] COVENANT-1983 BCE, Matt.1:1-17; 
Age 0075 - 0100, years [2083 - 2108] Abraham to Isaac. Gen.21:5. 
Age 0100 - 0175, years (2008 - 2183)* Abraham #20 Gen.25:7,9. 
Age 0000 - 0005, years [2108 - 2113] Isaac heir. Gen.15:13,16,18. 
Age 0005 - 0060, years (2113 - 2168) Isaac & Jacob. Gen.25:26. 
Age 0060 - 0180, years (2168 - 2288)* Isaac #21. Gen.35:28,29. 
Age 0000 - 0130, years [2168 - 2298] 70 in Egypt. Gen.47:9. 46:27. 
Age 0130 - 0147, years (2298 - 2315)* Jacob #22. Gen.47:28. 
Age 0040 - 0110, years (2298 - 2368)* Joseph 23rd person[Gen.50:24-26]. 
END: Book of Genesis 2368th year after Adam was created last[1698 BCE]. 
Abraham son #20, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Pharez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, 
Nashon, Salmon[Naomi and Ruth 4:18-22]; Boaz, Obed, Jesse & David #33. 
Age 0040 - 0080, years [2433 - 2513] Moses Exodus 12:37,41[+ yr 2083]. 
Age 0080 - 0120, years (2513 - 2553)* Exo.7:7; Deut.34:7, Moses dies. 
Age 0120 - 0301, years [2553 - 2854] Jdgs 11:26[Exodus + 341st yr]. 
Age 0080 - 0100, years (2883 - 2983)* Acts 13:20,21 + 20-1Sam.25:1. 
Age 0024 - 0070, years (2983 - 3029)* 33.David 2Sam.5:4,5; 1Ki.2:10,11. 
Age 0029 - 0033, years (3029 - 3033)* 01.Solomon 1Ki.6:1[480-Deut.34:7]. 
Age 0033 - 0069, years (3033 - 3069)* 01.Solomon* Psm.83:18; 1Ki.11:42. 
Age 0041 + 0017, years (3029 - 3046)* 02.Rehoboam* 1Ki.14:21. 
Age 0040 + 0003, years (3046 - 3089)* 03.Abijam* 1Ki.15:2. 
Age 0019 + 0041, years (3089 - 3130)* 04.Asa* 1Ki.15:10. 
Age 0035 + 0023, years (3130 - 3153)* 05.Jehosaphat*1Ki.22:42. 
Age 0032 + 0008, years (3153 - 3161)* 06.Jehoram* 2Ki.8:17,31. 
Age 0022 + 0001, years (3161 - 3162)* 07.Ahaziah* 2Ki.8:26. 
Age 0000 + 0006, years (3162 - 3168)* xxAthalia 2Ki.11:3. 
Age 0007 + 0040, years (3168 - 3208)* xxJehoash 2Ki.12:21. 
Age 0025 + 0029, years (3208 - 3237)* xxAmaziah 2Ki.14:2. 
Age 0016 + 0052, years (3237 - 3289)* 08.Uzziah* 2Ki.15:2. 
Age 0025 + 0016, years (3289 - 3305)* 09.Jotham* 2Ki.15:33. 
Age 0020 + 0016, years (3305 - 3321)* 10.Ahaz* 2Ki.16:2. 
Age 0025 + 0029, years (3321 - 3350)* 11.Hezekiah* 2Ki.18:2. 
Age 0012 + 0055, years (3350 - 3405)* 12.Manasseh* 2Ki.21:1. 
Age 0022 + 0002, years (3405 - 3407)* 13.Amon* 2ki.21:19. 
Age 0008 + 0031, years (3407 - 3438)* 14.Josiah* 2Ki.22:1. 
Age 0025 + 0011, Years (3438 - 3449)* xxJehoiakim 2Ki:23,36. 
Age 0010 + 0018, years (3431 - 3449)-Jehoiachin 2Ki.25:8,27-30. 
Age 0018 + 0037, years (3449 - 3068)-Jehoiachin Jer.52:31-34.Eze.1:2. 
Age 0021 + 0011, years (3449 - 3460 - 606 BCE). xxZedekiah 2Ki.24:27. 
Age 0027 + 0073, Years (3433 - 3460 - 606 BCE), Daniel, yr. 3533. 
[Daniel yr 3460 [606 BCE, O. T., at John, to 2012 CE], 2618 yrs ago]. 
1)Jehoiachin, 2)Salathiel, 3)Zorobabel, 4)Abiud, 5)Eliakim, 6)Azor, 
7)Sadoc, 8)Achim, 9)Eliud, 10)Eleazor, 11)Matthan, 12)Jacob, 13)Joseph 
[of David's son Solomon], the husband of Mary[of David's son Nathan's 
lineage], of whom was born 14)Jesus, called Christ, Messiah[Dan.9:24-27], 
Emmanuel, God's anointed, Matt.3:16,17.
answers3: Tina`s right y`know. 
 
Try actually looking at the tangible evidence, it wont take long. 
There isn`t any.
answers4: If you're an "infallible word of God" cover your eyes and
don't read my answer, i don't mean to pick at any part of your faith
and certainly don't mean to offend anybody. 
 
Personally I love the bible, I accept it as truth, I accept it as
inspired, but feel no need to justify every contradiction as correct
in both cases. 
 
If you must figure this out while having both of the discussions be
"infallible", I wish you luck; that would take a lot of twisting and
speculating on dozens of special circumstances to be plausible. If
you can consider that one of them may have gotten it wrong then
consider the following: 
 
 
Mathew had a different audience than Luke in the bible. Mathew was a
Jew writing to other Jews in order to convince them that Jesus was the
Jewish Messiah, and thus his genealogy was intended to show the
following things: 
- A lineage from David, King of Israel - implying that He would have
been rightful heir to the thrown. 
- A lineage including 21 generation, he actually included 19 but
stretched it to look like 21 because 3 and 7 are holy numbers so 21
generations from David would be significant 
- A lineage touching on some of the important people in the Judeo history 
- A mention of Christ coming "out of Egypt" and a "slaughter of the
innocent" to equate Christ with Moses. There is a lack of historical
evidence for the slaughter of the innocent near the birth of Christ
and the notion that Jesus grew up in Egypt makes it odd to call Him
"Jesus of Nazareth" in the remainder of the scriptures and fulfilling
a prophecy that was already fulfilled in Moses again with Jesus. 
 
I think Mathew was aiming for a certain audience and perhaps aimed a
bit too hard. I doubt anybody manipulated the texts, but in the
reasoning of Jew to Jew during the era it probably was a story that
evolved. 
 
Luke on the other hand was a physician, and wrote from a gentile's
perspective to other gentiles without the need to make the Jewish
points that Mathew focuses on. 
 
I believe Luke probably got it right because his lineage wasn't trying
to force the points that Mathew needed to force to make his point. Of
course the only key piece of information is what they both agree on,
that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh and that
someway or somehow Mary was His mother but in a marvelous way, the
virgin conceived and God was His father.
answers5: Jesus' genealogy is given in two places in Scripture:
Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38. Matthew traces the genealogy from Jesus to
Abraham. Luke traces the genealogy from Jesus to Adam. However, there
is good reason to believe that Matthew and Luke are in fact tracing
entirely different genealogies. For example, Matthew gives Joseph's
father as Jacob (Matthew 1:16), while Luke gives Joseph's father as
Heli (Luke 3:23). Matthew traces the line through David's son Solomon
(Matthew 1:6), while Luke traces the line through David's son Nathan
(Luke 3:31). In fact, between David and Jesus, the only names the
genealogies have in common are Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Matthew 1:12;
Luke 3:27). 
 
Some point to these differences as evidence of errors in the Bible.
However, the Jews were meticulous record keepers, especially in regard
to genealogies. It is inconceivable that Matthew and Luke could build
two entirely contradictory genealogies of the same lineage. Again,
from David through Jesus, the genealogies are completely different.
Even the reference to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel likely refer to
different individuals of the same names. Matthew gives Shealtiel's
father as Jeconiah while Luke gives Shealtiel's father as Neri. It
would be normal for a man named Shealtiel to name his son Zerubbabel
in light of the famous individuals of those names (see the books of
Ezra and Nehemiah). 
 
Another explanation is that Matthew is tracing the primary lineage
while Luke is taking into account the occurrences of "levirate
marriage." If a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for
the man's brother to marry his wife and have a son who would carry on
the man's name. While possible, this view is unlikely as every
generation from David to Jesus would have had a "levirate marriage" in
order to account for the differences in every generation. This is
highly unlikely. 
 
With these concepts in view, most conservative Bible scholars assume
Luke is recording Mary's genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph's.
Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus' legal father), through
David's son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus'
blood relative), though David's son Nathan. There was no Greek word
for "son-in-law," and Joseph would have been considered a son of Heli
through marrying Heli's daughter Mary. Through either line, Jesus is a
descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing
a genealogy through the mother's side is unusual, but so was the
virgin birth. Luke's explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph,
"so it was thought" (Luke 3:23).
answers6: Jesus never existed, everything you believe is a lie.
answers7: There is no contradiction actually. There were 35 names from
Yahweh to David and 35 names from Solomon to Jesus. It so happens that
in Matthew, on the king's seed, the father of Mary was named Joseph
too and the word husband should be written as father. So we have
Jacob, Joseph, Mary and Jesus. In Luke it was Matthat, Heli, then
Joseph, the husband of Mary.
answers8: at the starting up, enable's look on the origins of the
books of Luke and Matthew.. the books were written by utilizing
diverse human beings in diverse situations.. although both one among
them were given their resources from amassing witness money owed, no
longer by any prophetic visions.. so, it is envisioned that there'll
be some small incorrect information in the actual elements (yet no
longer the moral elements).. as an social gathering, in a unmarried
gospel, it is written on Jesus' flow "behold, the King of the jews" at
the same time as the different said "King of Jews" in elementary
words.. such small massive difference is envisioned once you're
amassing witness account.. for this reason in elementary words 4
maximum precise and consistent books out of thousands were chosen into
the bible.. although, the version in the lineage of Jesus isn't an
major one. does it remember if Joseph's father develop into Jacob or
Heli etc? none that i comprehend of. at the same time as the church
declares that there aren't any contradictions in the bible, she
develop into talking about the message in the back of the words..
subsequently, the message develop into "Jesus develop right into a
descendant of David".. it doesn't contradict with any area of the
bible this way, and that is what concerns more effective.. what
remember's even more effective is that Jesus' human ancestry bears no
magnitude in any respect compared to his religious ancestry, it really
is Him being the Son of the most extreme Lord! don't be puzzled over
such small conflict.. if can, ask a clergyman or catechist that can
help you out, he can clarify more effective.. :)

Steve

111

Sunday, 15 September 2019

Two contradicting genealogies of Jesus?

No comments:

Post a Comment