Jesus's Geneology

[KnowGod]

What can I say to this atheist guy I'm conversing with about how the genealogies given by Matthew and Luke don't agree and trace Jesus's line to David differently, starting with different fathers for Joseph? He also wants to know why they trace it through Joseph if he is not the biological father.

Thanks in advance for the responses.

 

[jerryjohnson]

What can I say to this atheist guy I'm conversing with about how the genealogies given by Matthew and Luke don't agree and trace Jesus's line to David differently, starting with different fathers for Joseph? He also wants to know why they trace it through Joseph if he is not the biological father.

Thanks in advance for the responses.

Luke is through Mary's line, Heli, is Mary's father and Joseph's father in law. Matthew's through Joseph's line.

 

[Miss Hepburn]

Isn't it funny how many many atheists know the Bible so well?

I digressed here:
Of course, I have found NEVER debate an atheist that starts to debate the Bible. (Not that your guy did, KnowGod)
1. never debate - much of anything ---it is rare to find someone that will actually listen and change
their mind. So why bother.
2. And never debate anything about God - I mean radiate your peace of mind - but, atheists
can run rings around us ripping most verses with another one that contradicts it. They want to change a believer's mind and
humiliate them bec they are so "unscientific" and believe a book full of contradictions.

Ok, that has been MY experience. I am unprepared to defend the Bible ---I can only speak of my experience of it's truths
that have proven "TRUE' and work! The princibles and lessons are more meaningful than a particular contradiction or ques
they may have baiting you. They usually know you can't explain away the inconsistencies. It's like a lawyer's trap - never ask a question you don't
know what the answer will be!
All my opinion only,
Miss Hepburn

 

[amadeus]

Isn't it funny how many many atheists know the Bible so well?

I digressed here:
Of course, I have found NEVER debate an atheist that starts to debate the Bible. (Not that your guy did, KnowGod)
1. never debate - much of anything ---it is rare to find someone that will actually listen and change
their mind. So why bother.
2. And never debate anything about God - I mean radiate your peace of mind - but, atheists
can run rings around us ripping most verses with another one that contradicts it. They want to change a believer's mind and
humiliate them bec they are so "unscientific" and believe a book full of contradictions.

Ok, that has been MY experience. I am unprepared to defend the Bible ---I can only speak of my experience of it's truths
that have proven "TRUE' and work! The princibles and lessons are more meaningful than a particular contradiction or ques
they may have baiting you. They usually know you can't explain away the inconsistencies. It's like a lawyer's trap - never ask a question you don't
know what the answer will be!
All my opinion only,
Miss Hepburn

Very good answer here! I cannot explain it! God does know and we may know it in our hearts, but we cannot go through a closed door to deliver what God has given us to someone else.

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6

 

[Brother Mike]

I like this Miss Hepburn~!!!!!

We are told to preach the gospel and the goodness of Jesus. He gives us victory over everything. Sickness, poverty, unhappiness, EVERYTHING!!!! Your friends should see your joy, and see the blessings of God being poured out on you!!! That is what changes the mind of the sinner man. Seeing the goodness of God. Trying to prove what "THEY" want you to prove will only get you nowhere. The power and anointing of God on your life, the conviction of the Holy Ghost, now that will accomplish something.

Jesus Is Lord.

 

[jiggyfly]

John gave Jesus' genealogy through His Father.
John 1:1-4
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

 

[Martin W.]

Isn't it funny how many many atheists know the Bible so well? Miss Hepburn

I have a lot of Jewish friends and it it surprising how well they know the New Testament also. They can even correct Christians who quote something in error. Some know the N.T. better than we do ourselves.

It reminds me of someone who keeps some last minute options open. I also sense a lot of Jewish folks privately believe the new testament but remain quiet about it. I find they are certainly not "against" the bible the same way as the atheist is.

Deep down the atheist knows there is a God and that is why they sometimes work so hard to deny it. A person will not deny something that does not exist. For example you do not find people dedicated to proving Leprechauns do not exist.

AHHH ...... the dilemma of the atheist .... a lifetime of denial takes a lot of energy. If God did not exist life would be much easier for them.

I always enjoy your posts Miss Hepburn . Are you Katherine or Audrey or just a fan? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[jerryjohnson]

I have a lot of Jewish friends and it it surprising how well they know the New Testament also. They can even correct Christians who quote something in error. Some know the N.T. better than we do ourselves.

It reminds me of someone who keeps some last minute options open. I also sense a lot of Jewish folks privately believe the new testament but remain quiet about it. I find they are certainly not "against" the bible the same way as the atheist is.

Deep down the atheist knows there is a God and that is why they sometimes work so hard to deny it. A person will not deny something that does not exist. For example you do not find people dedicated to proving Leprechauns do not exist.

AHHH ...... the dilemma of the atheist .... a lifetime of denial takes a lot of energy. If God did not exist life would be much easier for them.

I always enjoy your posts Miss Hepburn . Are you Katherine or Audrey or just a fan? Inquiring minds want to know.

Who said Leprechauns don't exist?

 

[Irish]

Who said Leprechauns don't exist?

Hey, leave me out of this...........

Irish

 

[Martin W.]

Who said Leprechauns don't exist?

OK..... Maybe there are one or two in Ireland. Come to think of it a fairy told me that once. My memory must be slipping a bit.

 

[Doppleganger]

"What can I say to this atheist guy I'm conversing with about how the genealogies given by Matthew and Luke don't agree and trace Jesus's line to David differently, starting with different fathers for Joseph? He also wants to know why they trace it through Joseph if he is not the biological father."

First of all, let me say, that people that argue these 2 geneologies, don't usually get the "sign"ificance of it, let alone understand why its done this way. This is a messy argument, and I could spend 3 pages, alone, just spelling out the the 'so-called' discrepancies. Most atheists that argue this, don't have a clue to what the controversies are, let alone have any knowledge to debate you with it. It's just another excuse to discredit the whole Bible, based on few misinterpreted verses. If this is a personal debate, you have the advantage to research it and provide the answers. If it's an online debate, you have just as much info online to make your point, as they do to discredit it.

* [ My Notes] - Concerning Legal & Paternal Relationships

EW Bullinger's Companion Bible [& Commentary] pretty much spells out why, Joseph had two fathers.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus Himself when He began His ministry He was about thirty years old, being (as reckoned by law) [Legal Father] the Son of Joseph, Who was the son of Heli [Eli],

23 as reckoned by law. Gr. nomizo =to lay down a thing as law; to hold by custom, or usage; ... Joseph was begotten by Jacob, and was his natural son (Matt. 1:16). He could be the legal son of Heli, therefore, only by marriage with Heli’s daughter (Mary), and be reckoned so according to law. It does not say “begat” in the case of Heli ... see Ap.99.

Appendix 99

Luke 3:31 Who was the son of Melea, who was the son of Menan, who was the son of Mattatha, who was the son of Nathan [the natural line], who was the son of David,

31 Nathan. This is the natural line through Nathan. In Matthew 1:6, the regal line is shown through Solomon. Thus both lines became united in Joseph; and thus the Lord being raised from the dead is the one and only heir to the throne of David.

EW Bullinger's Preface on Luke's Gospel

The Divine purpose in the Gospel by Luke is to set forth the Lord not so much as the Messiah, “the King of Israel”, as in Matthew’s Gospel ... but as what He was in Jehovah’s sight, as the ideal MAN—“

Matthew 1:18-25
But the begetting of Jesus Christ was on this wise [account]: When as His mother Mary had been betrothed [pledged] to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with Child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, though he was a just man, yet not wishing to expose her to shame, made up his mind to divorce her [according to the law] secretly. But while he thought on these things, *behold, the [messenger of the Lord] appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou [son of David], be not afraid to take unto thee Mary thy [wife]: for That Which is [begotten] in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call Him JESUS: for He shall save His people from their sins. Now the whole of this was done, that it might be fulfilled whichwas spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, *Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call Him Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. [Quoting Isaiah 7:14] Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the [messenger of the Lord] had bidden him, and took unto him his [wife]: And [knew her not] till she had brought forth her firstborn Son: and Joseph called Him JESUS.

Here's some interesting sources dealing with the issue, both good & bad.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html
New Testament Contradictions (1995) Paul Carlson

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/birth2.html
Is there a Contradiction in the Genealogies of Luke and Matthew? Tony Warren

http://www.theology.edu/ap10.htm
The Genealogy of Jesus

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/genealogy.html
The Genealogies in Matthew and Luke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus
Genealogy of Jesus

 

[sniper762]

wrong jerry.

luke's genealogy plainly begins with joseph, not mary.

luke 3: 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

the difference in mathew and luke's genealogy is a product of a contradiction in the two's research.

 

[Selene]

What can I say to this atheist guy I'm conversing with about how the genealogies given by Matthew and Luke don't agree and trace Jesus's line to David differently, starting with different fathers for Joseph? He also wants to know why they trace it through Joseph if he is not the biological father.

Thanks in advance for the responses.

St. Joseph, who by nature was the son of Jacob, (St. Matt. 1. 16,) in the account of the law, was son of Heli. For Heli and Jacob were brothers, by the same mother; and Heli, who was the elder, dying without issue, Jacob, as the law directed, married his widow: in consequence of such marriage, his son Joseph was reputed in the law the son of Heli. The reason why the lineages are different is because the one in Matthew is a lineage that was traced by nature while the one in Luke is a lineage traced by law.

Joseph therefore being the object proposed to us, it must be shown how it is that each is recorded to be his father, both Jacob, who derived his descent from Solomon, and Eli, who derived his from Nathan; first how it is that these two, Jacob and Heli, were brothers, and then how it is that their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, although of different families, are declared to be grandfathers of Joseph.

Matthan and Melchi having married in succession the same woman, begat children who were uterine brothers, for the law did not prohibit a widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of her husband, from marrying another.

Matthan, a descendant of Solomon, first begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced his descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another family, married her as before said, and begat a son Heli.

Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Heli, although belonging to different families, yet brethren by the same mother. Of these the one, Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, took the latter's wife and begat by her a son Joseph, his own son by nature and in accordance with reason. Wherefore also it is written: `Jacob begat Joseph.' But according to law he was the son of Eli, for Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him.

Hence the genealogy traced through him will not be rendered void, which St Matthew in his enumeration gives thus: `Jacob begat Joseph.' But Luke, on the other hand, says: `Who was the son, as was supposed' (for this he also adds), `of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Melchi'; for he could not more clearly express the generation according to law. And the expression `he begat' he has omitted in his genealogical table up to the end, tracing the genealogy back to Adam the son of God.

Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since, according to the Law of Moses, inter-marriages between different tribes were not permitted. For the command is to marry one of the same family and lineage, so that the inheritance may not pass from tribe to tribe.


I hope that explanation helps.

 

[sniper762]

The 1st chapter of Mathew gives the genealogy of Jesus back to Abraham. I compared it with the genealogy of Adam forward that I gathered from Genesis through the 3rd chapter of Chronicals and the genealogy of Jesus according to Mark. I found a few of the generations with different name spellings but appear to be the same people.


Mathew 1:2 shows the son of Jacob as JUDAS. Gen 29:35 shows JUDAH
Mathew 1:3 shows the son of JUDAS as PHARES. Gen 39:1 shows PHAREZ
Mathew 1:3 shows the son of PHARES as ESROM. Gen 46:12 shows HEZRON
Mathew 1:3 shows the son of ESROM as ARAM the father of Amminadab.. Chronicles 2:9 as RAM the father of Aminadab.
Matheew 1:4 shows the son of AMINADAB as NAASSON; Ruth 4:20 shows NASHON as son of Aminadab.
Mathew 1:4-6 and Chronicles genealogy are similar to include SALMON, son of Nashon, his son BOAZ. His son OBED, his son JESSE, his son DAVID (King David), his son SOLOMON, his son ROBOAM (shown in Mathew 1:7) is shown in Chronicles 3:10 as REHOBOAM, his son ABIA and his son ASA are similar but his son JOSAPHAT ( Mathew 1:8) is shown in Chronicles 3:10 as JEHOSHAPHAT, his son JORAM, his son as in Mathew1:8 is OZIAS, could this be the same as in Chronicles 3:11 showing Joram’s son as AHAZIAH?
Mathew 1:9 show son of OZIAS (Chronicals 3:11 as AHAZIAH) as JOATHAM (Chronicals 3 :11 as JOASH), his son ACHAZ (Chronicles 3:13 as AHAZ), his son EZEKIAS (Chronicles 3:13 as HEZEKIAH) his son MANASSES (Chronicles 3:13 as MANASSEH, his son AMON (Chronicles 3:14 Same), his son JOSIAS (Chronicles 3:14 Same), his son JECHONIAS (Chronicles 3:15 as ???) If these are the same, then 3 generations have been lost (The generation from Adam to Josias in the Old Testament is the 49th: Mathew’s account is the 46th).
Mathew 1:12-16 shows the rest of the lineage leading up to Christ (Cannot be found in the Old Testament probably because those generations were not alive during that period) as: son of Jechonias as SALATHIEL, his son ZOROBABEL, his son ABIUD, his son ELIAKIM, his son AZOR, his son SADOC, his son ACHIM, his son ELIUD, his son ELEAZAR, his son MATHAN, his son JACOB, his son JOSEPH (Husband of Mary, Mother of Jesus)..

Neverheless, the lineage of Jesus is fairly accurate back to ADAM, being 64 generations covering a period of about 4000 years.

The books of the Bible show the lineage of Jesus as:

(LUKE’S) (MATHEW’S) (OLD TESTIMENT ACCOUNT)
JESUS 64 JESUS
JOSEPH 63 JOSEPH
HELI 62 JACOB
MATHAT 61 MATHAN
LEVI 60 ELEAZAR
MELCHI 59 ELIUD
JANNA 58 ACHIM
JOSEPH 57 SADOC
MATTATHIAS 56 AZOR
AMOS 55 ELIAKIM
NAUM 54 ABIUD
ESLI
NAGGE
MAATH
MATTATHIAS
SEMEI
JOSEPH
JUDA
JOANNA
RHESA
ZOROBABEL 53 ZOROBABEL
SALATHIEL 52 SALATHIEL 52 SALATHIAL
NERI 51 JECONIAH
MELCHI 50 JEHOIAKIM
ADDI 49 JOSIAH
COSAM 48 AMON
ELMODAM 47 MANASSEH
ER 46 HEZIKIAH
JOSE 45 AHAZ
ELIEZER 44 JOTHAM
JORIM 43 AZARIAH
MATHAT 42 AMAZIAH
LEVI 41 JOASH
SIMEON 40 AHAZIAH
JUDA 39 JORAM
JOSEPH JOSAPHAT 38 JEHOSHAPHAT
JONAN ASA 37 ASA
ELIAKIM ABIA 36 ABIA
MELEA ROBOAM 35 REHOBOAM
MENAN SOLOMON 34 SOLOMON
MATTATHA
NATHAN
DAVID DAVID 33 DAVID
JESSE JESSE 32 JESSE
OBED OBED 31 OBED
BOAZ BOAZ 30 BOAZ
SALMON 29 SALMON
NAASSON NAASSON 28 NASHON
AMINADAB AMINADAB 27 AMMINADAB
ARAM ARAM 26 RAM
ESROM ESROM 25 HEZRON
PHARES PHARES 24 PHAREZ
JUDA JUDAS 23 JUDAH
JACOB JACOB 22 JACOB / ISRAEL
ISAAC ISAAC 21 ISAAC
ABRAHAM ABRAHAM 20 ABRAM / ABRAHAM
THARA 19 TERAH
NACHOR 18 NAHOR
SARUCH 17 SERUG
RAGAU 16 REU
PHALEC 15 PELEG
HEBER 14 EBER
SALA 13 SALAH
CAINAN
ARPHAXAD 12 ARPHAXAD
SEM 11 SHEM
NOE 10 NOAH
LAMECH 9 LAMECH
MATHUSALA 8 METHUSELAH
ENOCH 7 ENOCH
JARED 6 JARED
MALELEEL 5 MAHALALEEL
CAINAN 4 CAINAN
ENOS 3 ENOS
SETH 2 SETH
ADAM 1 ADAM

the 64 generations between adam an jesus are numbered and matched against the ot genelogy. notice the similarities that luke records as to those of mathew. also notice the differennces.
it is apparent that both record the SAME lineage, yet one records names that the other does not.

 

[brionne]

wrong jerry.

luke's genealogy plainly begins with joseph, not mary.

luke 3: 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

the difference in mathew and luke's genealogy is a product of a contradiction in the two's research.

No, there is no contradiction in the geneaologies. We know that Heli was mary's paternal father because he was a priest and the priests all came from one line...the levites. Elizabeth (John the baptists mother) is said to be Mary's cousin and the priest Zechariah is her husband so it stands to reason that Mary was from the tribe of the Levites thru her priestly father. Whereas Joseph's father comes from Davids family line thru Solomon.

Luke 1:5,13,35-36


The reason why Heli is said to be Josephs father is because when Mary and Joseph married, Heli did become Josephs father...a father by law.... and in the eyes of everyone, Jesus real father....thats besides that fact that females were not listed in the genealogical tables for the reason that the following quote says:

M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774): “In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numb. xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7).” It is undoubtedly for this reason the historian Luke says that Joseph was the “son of Heli.”

 

[sniper762]

you say The reason why Heli is said to be Josephs father is because when Mary and Joseph married, Heli did become Josephs father...a father by law..

PROPOSTEROUS

in those days women had very little status, much less namesake. joseph would never had taken HER father as his.

 

[Paul]

you say The reason why Heli is said to be Josephs father is because when Mary and Joseph married, Heli did become Josephs father...a father by law..

PROPOSTEROUS

in those days women had very little status, much less namesake. joseph would never had taken HER father as his.

Well, sniper, you might think that it is preposterous but it is as pegg said. Read what jerryjohnson said in post #2. He was correct.

 

[brionne]

you say The reason why Heli is said to be Josephs father is because when Mary and Joseph married, Heli did become Josephs father...a father by law..

PROPOSTEROUS

in those days women had very little status, much less namesake. joseph would never had taken HER father as his.

So my husbands father is not considered to be my 'father in law'? Interseting.


You know that females were not recorded in the genealogies and im pretty sure you also know that no one can literally have 2 biological fathers. So the fact is that either Heli was Josephs father or Jacob was.

but Jacob was not a priest as he did not come from the priestly line....Heli was and Mary's relative Elizabeth was married to the priest Zechariah. So it was Mary's family who were of the tribe of levi and therefore Heli was her father.

 

[sniper762]

YOUR father and father-in-law is determined by today's standards which have changd drastically from days of old.

the differences between mathew and luke's genealogies comes from their difference in research, just like there is differences in lineage of similar families in genealogical research today.

 

[Paul]

YOUR father and father-in-law is determined by today's standards which have changd drastically from days of old.

the differences between mathew and luke's genealogies comes from their difference in research, just like there is differences in lineage of similar families in genealogical research today.

sniper, you may think what you want, I will stay with SCRIPTURE!