The Bible contradiction thread

[peach174]

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

Another contradiction .... in the New Testament are two separate genealogies leading to Jesus. One saying he was from the seed of Solomon, son of David; the other says he was from the seed of Nathan, son of David.

Seed of Solomon is through Joseph.
Seed of Nathan is through Mary.

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

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,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

Another contradiction .... in the New Testament are two separate genealogies leading to Jesus. One saying he was from the seed of Solomon, son of David; the other says he was from the seed of Nathan, son of David.

Seed of Solomon is through Joseph.
Seed of Nathan is through Mary.

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

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,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

Joseph and Mary were 1st cousins.

That’s nice; but not found anywhere in the New Testament. And again, Luke only mentions the genealogy of Joseph, not Mary.

And then there’s another contradiction... Matthew, also listing the lineage of Joseph’s genealogy, lists 17 generations from King David to Zorobabel (including David). However, 1 Chronicles lists 21 generations.

So which one is right?

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

Another contradiction .... in the New Testament are two separate genealogies leading to Jesus. One saying he was from the seed of Solomon, son of David; the other says he was from the seed of Nathan, son of David.

Seed of Solomon is through Joseph.
Seed of Nathan is through Mary.

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

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,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

Another contradiction .... in the New Testament are two separate genealogies leading to Jesus. One saying he was from the seed of Solomon, son of David; the other says he was from the seed of Nathan, son of David.

Seed of Solomon is through Joseph.
Seed of Nathan is through Mary.

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

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,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

Joseph and Mary were 1st cousins.

That’s nice; but not found anywhere in the New Testament. And again, Luke only mentions the genealogy of Joseph, not Mary.

And then there’s another contradiction... Matthew, also listing the lineage of Joseph’s genealogy, lists 17 generations from King David to Zorobabel (including David). However, 1 Chronicles lists 21 generations.

So which one is right?

Mary and Joseph come from the same tribe.
Elizabeth and Mary were related.
Elizabeth's tribe came from Levi.
Mary's tribe came from Juda.
Juda and Levi were brothers.

 

[peach174]

Another contradiction .... in the New Testament are two separate genealogies leading to Jesus. One saying he was from the seed of Solomon, son of David; the other says he was from the seed of Nathan, son of David.

Seed of Solomon is through Joseph.
Seed of Nathan is through Mary.

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

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,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

Another contradiction .... in the New Testament are two separate genealogies leading to Jesus. One saying he was from the seed of Solomon, son of David; the other says he was from the seed of Nathan, son of David.

Seed of Solomon is through Joseph.
Seed of Nathan is through Mary.

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

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,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

Joseph and Mary were 1st cousins.

That’s nice; but not found anywhere in the New Testament. And again, Luke only mentions the genealogy of Joseph, not Mary.

And then there’s another contradiction... Matthew, also listing the lineage of Joseph’s genealogy, lists 17 generations from King David to Zorobabel (including David). However, 1 Chronicles lists 21 generations.

So which one is right?

Another contradiction .... in the New Testament are two separate genealogies leading to Jesus. One saying he was from the seed of Solomon, son of David; the other says he was from the seed of Nathan, son of David.

Seed of Solomon is through Joseph.
Seed of Nathan is through Mary.

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

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,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

Another contradiction .... in the New Testament are two separate genealogies leading to Jesus. One saying he was from the seed of Solomon, son of David; the other says he was from the seed of Nathan, son of David.

Seed of Solomon is through Joseph.
Seed of Nathan is through Mary.

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

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,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

Joseph and Mary were 1st cousins.

That’s nice; but not found anywhere in the New Testament. And again, Luke only mentions the genealogy of Joseph, not Mary.

And then there’s another contradiction... Matthew, also listing the lineage of Joseph’s genealogy, lists 17 generations from King David to Zorobabel (including David). However, 1 Chronicles lists 21 generations.

So which one is right?

Mary and Joseph come from the same tribe.
Elizabeth and Mary were related.
Elizabeth's tribe came from Levi.
Mary's tribe came from Juda.
Juda and Levi were brothers.

Matthew's genealogy is direct.
Luke's genealogy includes levirate marriages.

1st chronicles lists the whole line, back to Adam.

 

[Faun]

Seed of Solomon is through Joseph.
Seed of Nathan is through Mary.

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

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,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

Seed of Solomon is through Joseph.
Seed of Nathan is through Mary.

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

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,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

Joseph and Mary were 1st cousins.

That’s nice; but not found anywhere in the New Testament. And again, Luke only mentions the genealogy of Joseph, not Mary.

And then there’s another contradiction... Matthew, also listing the lineage of Joseph’s genealogy, lists 17 generations from King David to Zorobabel (including David). However, 1 Chronicles lists 21 generations.

So which one is right?

Seed of Solomon is through Joseph.
Seed of Nathan is through Mary.

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

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,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

Seed of Solomon is through Joseph.
Seed of Nathan is through Mary.

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

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,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

Joseph and Mary were 1st cousins.

That’s nice; but not found anywhere in the New Testament. And again, Luke only mentions the genealogy of Joseph, not Mary.

And then there’s another contradiction... Matthew, also listing the lineage of Joseph’s genealogy, lists 17 generations from King David to Zorobabel (including David). However, 1 Chronicles lists 21 generations.

So which one is right?

Mary and Joseph come from the same tribe.
Elizabeth and Mary were related.
Elizabeth's tribe came from Levi.
Mary's tribe came from Juda.
Juda and Levi were brothers.

Matthew's genealogy is direct.
Luke's genealogy includes levirate marriages.

1st chronicles lists the whole line, back to Adam.

Both 1 Chronicles and Matthew list the generations from David to Zorobabel — only there are 4 fewer generations mentioned in Matthew. Isn’t the Bible supposed to be perfect? How do you account for this discrepancy?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Right. It does say that. But it should be pretty obvious that the lineage is that of two different people.

And both attributed to Joseph.

And again, according to Matthew, there are 4 generations missing.

No its not...................

LOL

The Bible shows it is. Your hollow denials fail you as always.

try me again Bitch...............




Regarding the first condition, did Mary have brothers?
We have no record of it. The Bible does not mention brothers, but it does say she had a sister.
John 19:25, "Now there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." It is thought that the sister of Mary was Salome, the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John (Matthew 20:20, Mark 15:40).
Please see "The Genealogy of the Brethren", for more.

In the Jewish culture in those days, the mother who was widowed (assuming that Joseph was dead at this time) would have gone to her father, or brother, or to her other children. Apparently, her father was dead, she had no brothers, and she had no other children, so Jesus gave her to John in John 19:27.
The words of Jesus in John 19:27, and lack of evidence of male siblings, strongly suggest that the first condition was satisfied.
The second condition is a bit more involved:
Matthew 1:1-16, "(1) The book of the origin of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the son of Abraham. (2) Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judah.....(5)...Jesse begot David the king. (6) And David the king begot Solomon of the former wife of Uriah." (Bathsheba)
This Genealogy continues and we see in verse 16, "And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, and of her was born Jesus who is called Christ."
Notice that the descendant of David is Solomon. We shall see in Luke's genealogy, a different son of David.
Matthew clearly shows that the bloodline of Joseph does go back to the tribe of Judah, and through king David. If Jesus Christ is the Son of David, then His mother, Mary has to be also of the house of David and therefore by implication, of the tribe of Judah. As we have already seen in Romans 1:3, it could have not been said that the Son was born according to the flesh of the offspring of David unless Mary were of Davidic descent. We shall delve into this further later on.

Luke 1:26-27, "Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from GOD to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary."
We have already seen that Mary is implied as being of the house of David in Luke 1:32. If she were not of the house of David, then clearly, Jesus Christ could not have been descendant of David as do so many verses attest. She married within her tribe (by implication) and so the second condition appears to be satisfied.


Luke 2:4-5, "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child."
Thus Mary, in order to be betrothed to Joseph, had to be of the same house of David as he. Consequently, both conditions for the bloodline to continue through the female line are satisfactorily met by Mary.

”try me again Bitch...............”

You’re too funny.

And by the way, I’m dismissing you again because Luke still says it was Joseph who was descended from David, not Mary. Nowhere in the Bible does it show Mary was a descendant of David.

Shit, you even posted yourself, in big bold red letters, it’s “implied.”

Dumbfuck, implications are non-factual and highly subjective.

That’s why that’s all you have to argue.

yea because you are a heathen and evolved from a monkey, a little Sunday school kid knows Mary's lineage is in Luke you stupid fuck



Is Mary’s lineage in one of the Gospels?



The genealogy in Matt. 1:1f is traced through Joseph, Jesus’ legal (though not natural) father, and it establishes His claim and right to the throne of David (v. 6). The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 is evidently that of Mary, though some believe it is also Joseph’s, by assuming that Matthan (Matt 1:15) and Matthat (Luke 3:24) were the same person and Jacob (Matt 1:16) and Eli (Luke 3:23) were brothers (one being Joseph’s father and the other his uncle). See note on Luke 3:23.

Many conservative scholars have taken this view because of the many differences in the names between the two accounts. The biggest difference is that after David, many of the names are different. It would seem best to explain the difference by viewing Luke’s genealogy as tracing the physical ancestors of Christ through Mary, while Matthew’s genealogy traces the kingly line of Christ through Joseph.

The following is the comment from The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

In addition Luke’s and Matthew’s lists from David to Shealtiel (during the time of the Exile) differ. That is because the lists trace different lines. Luke traced David’s line through Nathan, whereas Matthew traced it through Solomon. Following Shealtiel’s son, Zerubbabel, the lists once again differ until both lists unite at Joseph whom, Luke noted, was “thought” to be the father of Jesus. Little doubt exists that Matthew’s genealogy traced the kingly line of David—the royal legal line. The question is, What is the significance of Luke’s genealogy? Two main possibilities exist.

1. Luke was tracing the line of Mary. Many interpreters argue that Luke was giving the genealogy of Mary, showing that she also was in the line of David and that therefore Jesus was qualified as the Messiah not only through Joseph (since he was the oldest legal heir) but also through Mary.

2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph. This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. In this view Jacob, Joseph’s uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and then Jesus would have been brought into the royal line.

Both views have problems which are difficult to answer, not the least of which is the fact that the two genealogies meet at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and then split a second time only to come together at Joseph and Jesus. (Cf. comments on Matt. 1:12.) Regardless of one’s view it is important to note an important aspect of the theology Luke expressed in his genealogy. He related Jesus not only to Abraham but all the way back to Adam and to God. This is an indication of the universal offer of salvation, which is common to his Gospel—that Jesus came to save all people—Gentiles as well as the nation of Israel (cf. Luke 2:32).

Luke 3:23 says, “And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.” Many believe that Luke is saying that Jesus was the grandson of Eli or Heli through Mary. Eli was Mary’s father and Jesus’ grandfather. By contrast, Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew.

 

[Faun]

And both attributed to Joseph.

And again, according to Matthew, there are 4 generations missing.

No its not...................

LOL

The Bible shows it is. Your hollow denials fail you as always.

try me again Bitch...............




Regarding the first condition, did Mary have brothers?
We have no record of it. The Bible does not mention brothers, but it does say she had a sister.
John 19:25, "Now there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." It is thought that the sister of Mary was Salome, the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John (Matthew 20:20, Mark 15:40).
Please see "The Genealogy of the Brethren", for more.

In the Jewish culture in those days, the mother who was widowed (assuming that Joseph was dead at this time) would have gone to her father, or brother, or to her other children. Apparently, her father was dead, she had no brothers, and she had no other children, so Jesus gave her to John in John 19:27.
The words of Jesus in John 19:27, and lack of evidence of male siblings, strongly suggest that the first condition was satisfied.
The second condition is a bit more involved:
Matthew 1:1-16, "(1) The book of the origin of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the son of Abraham. (2) Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judah.....(5)...Jesse begot David the king. (6) And David the king begot Solomon of the former wife of Uriah." (Bathsheba)
This Genealogy continues and we see in verse 16, "And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, and of her was born Jesus who is called Christ."
Notice that the descendant of David is Solomon. We shall see in Luke's genealogy, a different son of David.
Matthew clearly shows that the bloodline of Joseph does go back to the tribe of Judah, and through king David. If Jesus Christ is the Son of David, then His mother, Mary has to be also of the house of David and therefore by implication, of the tribe of Judah. As we have already seen in Romans 1:3, it could have not been said that the Son was born according to the flesh of the offspring of David unless Mary were of Davidic descent. We shall delve into this further later on.

Luke 1:26-27, "Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from GOD to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary."
We have already seen that Mary is implied as being of the house of David in Luke 1:32. If she were not of the house of David, then clearly, Jesus Christ could not have been descendant of David as do so many verses attest. She married within her tribe (by implication) and so the second condition appears to be satisfied.


Luke 2:4-5, "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child."
Thus Mary, in order to be betrothed to Joseph, had to be of the same house of David as he. Consequently, both conditions for the bloodline to continue through the female line are satisfactorily met by Mary.

”try me again Bitch...............”

You’re too funny.

And by the way, I’m dismissing you again because Luke still says it was Joseph who was descended from David, not Mary. Nowhere in the Bible does it show Mary was a descendant of David.

Shit, you even posted yourself, in big bold red letters, it’s “implied.”

Dumbfuck, implications are non-factual and highly subjective.

That’s why that’s all you have to argue.

yea because you are a heathen and evolved from a monkey, a little Sunday school kid knows Mary's lineage is in Luke you stupid fuck



Is Mary’s lineage in one of the Gospels?



The genealogy in Matt. 1:1f is traced through Joseph, Jesus’ legal (though not natural) father, and it establishes His claim and right to the throne of David (v. 6). The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 is evidently that of Mary, though some believe it is also Joseph’s, by assuming that Matthan (Matt 1:15) and Matthat (Luke 3:24) were the same person and Jacob (Matt 1:16) and Eli (Luke 3:23) were brothers (one being Joseph’s father and the other his uncle). See note on Luke 3:23.

Many conservative scholars have taken this view because of the many differences in the names between the two accounts. The biggest difference is that after David, many of the names are different. It would seem best to explain the difference by viewing Luke’s genealogy as tracing the physical ancestors of Christ through Mary, while Matthew’s genealogy traces the kingly line of Christ through Joseph.

The following is the comment from The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

In addition Luke’s and Matthew’s lists from David to Shealtiel (during the time of the Exile) differ. That is because the lists trace different lines. Luke traced David’s line through Nathan, whereas Matthew traced it through Solomon. Following Shealtiel’s son, Zerubbabel, the lists once again differ until both lists unite at Joseph whom, Luke noted, was “thought” to be the father of Jesus. Little doubt exists that Matthew’s genealogy traced the kingly line of David—the royal legal line. The question is, What is the significance of Luke’s genealogy? Two main possibilities exist.

1. Luke was tracing the line of Mary. Many interpreters argue that Luke was giving the genealogy of Mary, showing that she also was in the line of David and that therefore Jesus was qualified as the Messiah not only through Joseph (since he was the oldest legal heir) but also through Mary.

2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph. This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. In this view Jacob, Joseph’s uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and then Jesus would have been brought into the royal line.

Both views have problems which are difficult to answer, not the least of which is the fact that the two genealogies meet at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and then split a second time only to come together at Joseph and Jesus. (Cf. comments on Matt. 1:12.) Regardless of one’s view it is important to note an important aspect of the theology Luke expressed in his genealogy. He related Jesus not only to Abraham but all the way back to Adam and to God. This is an indication of the universal offer of salvation, which is common to his Gospel—that Jesus came to save all people—Gentiles as well as the nation of Israel (cf. Luke 2:32).

Luke 3:23 says, “And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.” Many believe that Luke is saying that Jesus was the grandson of Eli or Heli through Mary. Eli was Mary’s father and Jesus’ grandfather. By contrast, Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck, you already posted a link saying some think Matthew lists Joseph’s lineage and Luke lists Mary’s ... while others think it’s the other way around.

The truth is nobody knows if either are Mary’s since the Bible doesn’t stay. What it does say is that both are Joseph’s. Anything you state beyond that — is made up.

 

[peach174]

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

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,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

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,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

Joseph and Mary were 1st cousins.

That’s nice; but not found anywhere in the New Testament. And again, Luke only mentions the genealogy of Joseph, not Mary.

And then there’s another contradiction... Matthew, also listing the lineage of Joseph’s genealogy, lists 17 generations from King David to Zorobabel (including David). However, 1 Chronicles lists 21 generations.

So which one is right?

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

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,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

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,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

Joseph and Mary were 1st cousins.

That’s nice; but not found anywhere in the New Testament. And again, Luke only mentions the genealogy of Joseph, not Mary.

And then there’s another contradiction... Matthew, also listing the lineage of Joseph’s genealogy, lists 17 generations from King David to Zorobabel (including David). However, 1 Chronicles lists 21 generations.

So which one is right?

Mary and Joseph come from the same tribe.
Elizabeth and Mary were related.
Elizabeth's tribe came from Levi.
Mary's tribe came from Juda.
Juda and Levi were brothers.

Matthew's genealogy is direct.
Luke's genealogy includes levirate marriages.

1st chronicles lists the whole line, back to Adam.

Both 1 Chronicles and Matthew list the generations from David to Zorobabel — only there are 4 fewer generations mentioned in Matthew. Isn’t the Bible supposed to be perfect? How do you account for this discrepancy?

Do you mean Zerubbabel?
Matthew has it listed starting from Abraham,Chronicles does not list him, but goes completely back to Adam.

 

[peach174]

No its not...................

LOL

The Bible shows it is. Your hollow denials fail you as always.

try me again Bitch...............




Regarding the first condition, did Mary have brothers?
We have no record of it. The Bible does not mention brothers, but it does say she had a sister.
John 19:25, "Now there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." It is thought that the sister of Mary was Salome, the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John (Matthew 20:20, Mark 15:40).
Please see "The Genealogy of the Brethren", for more.

In the Jewish culture in those days, the mother who was widowed (assuming that Joseph was dead at this time) would have gone to her father, or brother, or to her other children. Apparently, her father was dead, she had no brothers, and she had no other children, so Jesus gave her to John in John 19:27.
The words of Jesus in John 19:27, and lack of evidence of male siblings, strongly suggest that the first condition was satisfied.
The second condition is a bit more involved:
Matthew 1:1-16, "(1) The book of the origin of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the son of Abraham. (2) Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judah.....(5)...Jesse begot David the king. (6) And David the king begot Solomon of the former wife of Uriah." (Bathsheba)
This Genealogy continues and we see in verse 16, "And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, and of her was born Jesus who is called Christ."
Notice that the descendant of David is Solomon. We shall see in Luke's genealogy, a different son of David.
Matthew clearly shows that the bloodline of Joseph does go back to the tribe of Judah, and through king David. If Jesus Christ is the Son of David, then His mother, Mary has to be also of the house of David and therefore by implication, of the tribe of Judah. As we have already seen in Romans 1:3, it could have not been said that the Son was born according to the flesh of the offspring of David unless Mary were of Davidic descent. We shall delve into this further later on.

Luke 1:26-27, "Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from GOD to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary."
We have already seen that Mary is implied as being of the house of David in Luke 1:32. If she were not of the house of David, then clearly, Jesus Christ could not have been descendant of David as do so many verses attest. She married within her tribe (by implication) and so the second condition appears to be satisfied.


Luke 2:4-5, "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child."
Thus Mary, in order to be betrothed to Joseph, had to be of the same house of David as he. Consequently, both conditions for the bloodline to continue through the female line are satisfactorily met by Mary.

”try me again Bitch...............”

You’re too funny.

And by the way, I’m dismissing you again because Luke still says it was Joseph who was descended from David, not Mary. Nowhere in the Bible does it show Mary was a descendant of David.

Shit, you even posted yourself, in big bold red letters, it’s “implied.”

Dumbfuck, implications are non-factual and highly subjective.

That’s why that’s all you have to argue.

yea because you are a heathen and evolved from a monkey, a little Sunday school kid knows Mary's lineage is in Luke you stupid fuck



Is Mary’s lineage in one of the Gospels?



The genealogy in Matt. 1:1f is traced through Joseph, Jesus’ legal (though not natural) father, and it establishes His claim and right to the throne of David (v. 6). The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 is evidently that of Mary, though some believe it is also Joseph’s, by assuming that Matthan (Matt 1:15) and Matthat (Luke 3:24) were the same person and Jacob (Matt 1:16) and Eli (Luke 3:23) were brothers (one being Joseph’s father and the other his uncle). See note on Luke 3:23.

Many conservative scholars have taken this view because of the many differences in the names between the two accounts. The biggest difference is that after David, many of the names are different. It would seem best to explain the difference by viewing Luke’s genealogy as tracing the physical ancestors of Christ through Mary, while Matthew’s genealogy traces the kingly line of Christ through Joseph.

The following is the comment from The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

In addition Luke’s and Matthew’s lists from David to Shealtiel (during the time of the Exile) differ. That is because the lists trace different lines. Luke traced David’s line through Nathan, whereas Matthew traced it through Solomon. Following Shealtiel’s son, Zerubbabel, the lists once again differ until both lists unite at Joseph whom, Luke noted, was “thought” to be the father of Jesus. Little doubt exists that Matthew’s genealogy traced the kingly line of David—the royal legal line. The question is, What is the significance of Luke’s genealogy? Two main possibilities exist.

1. Luke was tracing the line of Mary. Many interpreters argue that Luke was giving the genealogy of Mary, showing that she also was in the line of David and that therefore Jesus was qualified as the Messiah not only through Joseph (since he was the oldest legal heir) but also through Mary.

2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph. This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. In this view Jacob, Joseph’s uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and then Jesus would have been brought into the royal line.

Both views have problems which are difficult to answer, not the least of which is the fact that the two genealogies meet at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and then split a second time only to come together at Joseph and Jesus. (Cf. comments on Matt. 1:12.) Regardless of one’s view it is important to note an important aspect of the theology Luke expressed in his genealogy. He related Jesus not only to Abraham but all the way back to Adam and to God. This is an indication of the universal offer of salvation, which is common to his Gospel—that Jesus came to save all people—Gentiles as well as the nation of Israel (cf. Luke 2:32).

Luke 3:23 says, “And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.” Many believe that Luke is saying that Jesus was the grandson of Eli or Heli through Mary. Eli was Mary’s father and Jesus’ grandfather. By contrast, Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck, you already posted a link saying some think Matthew lists Joseph’s lineage and Luke lists Mary’s ... while others think it’s the other way around.

The truth is nobody knows if either are Mary’s since the Bible doesn’t stay. What it does say is that both are Joseph’s. Anything you state beyond that — is made up.

No its not...................

LOL

The Bible shows it is. Your hollow denials fail you as always.

try me again Bitch...............




Regarding the first condition, did Mary have brothers?
We have no record of it. The Bible does not mention brothers, but it does say she had a sister.
John 19:25, "Now there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." It is thought that the sister of Mary was Salome, the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John (Matthew 20:20, Mark 15:40).
Please see "The Genealogy of the Brethren", for more.

In the Jewish culture in those days, the mother who was widowed (assuming that Joseph was dead at this time) would have gone to her father, or brother, or to her other children. Apparently, her father was dead, she had no brothers, and she had no other children, so Jesus gave her to John in John 19:27.
The words of Jesus in John 19:27, and lack of evidence of male siblings, strongly suggest that the first condition was satisfied.
The second condition is a bit more involved:
Matthew 1:1-16, "(1) The book of the origin of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the son of Abraham. (2) Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judah.....(5)...Jesse begot David the king. (6) And David the king begot Solomon of the former wife of Uriah." (Bathsheba)
This Genealogy continues and we see in verse 16, "And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, and of her was born Jesus who is called Christ."
Notice that the descendant of David is Solomon. We shall see in Luke's genealogy, a different son of David.
Matthew clearly shows that the bloodline of Joseph does go back to the tribe of Judah, and through king David. If Jesus Christ is the Son of David, then His mother, Mary has to be also of the house of David and therefore by implication, of the tribe of Judah. As we have already seen in Romans 1:3, it could have not been said that the Son was born according to the flesh of the offspring of David unless Mary were of Davidic descent. We shall delve into this further later on.

Luke 1:26-27, "Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from GOD to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary."
We have already seen that Mary is implied as being of the house of David in Luke 1:32. If she were not of the house of David, then clearly, Jesus Christ could not have been descendant of David as do so many verses attest. She married within her tribe (by implication) and so the second condition appears to be satisfied.


Luke 2:4-5, "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child."
Thus Mary, in order to be betrothed to Joseph, had to be of the same house of David as he. Consequently, both conditions for the bloodline to continue through the female line are satisfactorily met by Mary.

”try me again Bitch...............”

You’re too funny.

And by the way, I’m dismissing you again because Luke still says it was Joseph who was descended from David, not Mary. Nowhere in the Bible does it show Mary was a descendant of David.

Shit, you even posted yourself, in big bold red letters, it’s “implied.”

Dumbfuck, implications are non-factual and highly subjective.

That’s why that’s all you have to argue.

yea because you are a heathen and evolved from a monkey, a little Sunday school kid knows Mary's lineage is in Luke you stupid fuck



Is Mary’s lineage in one of the Gospels?



The genealogy in Matt. 1:1f is traced through Joseph, Jesus’ legal (though not natural) father, and it establishes His claim and right to the throne of David (v. 6). The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 is evidently that of Mary, though some believe it is also Joseph’s, by assuming that Matthan (Matt 1:15) and Matthat (Luke 3:24) were the same person and Jacob (Matt 1:16) and Eli (Luke 3:23) were brothers (one being Joseph’s father and the other his uncle). See note on Luke 3:23.

Many conservative scholars have taken this view because of the many differences in the names between the two accounts. The biggest difference is that after David, many of the names are different. It would seem best to explain the difference by viewing Luke’s genealogy as tracing the physical ancestors of Christ through Mary, while Matthew’s genealogy traces the kingly line of Christ through Joseph.

The following is the comment from The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

In addition Luke’s and Matthew’s lists from David to Shealtiel (during the time of the Exile) differ. That is because the lists trace different lines. Luke traced David’s line through Nathan, whereas Matthew traced it through Solomon. Following Shealtiel’s son, Zerubbabel, the lists once again differ until both lists unite at Joseph whom, Luke noted, was “thought” to be the father of Jesus. Little doubt exists that Matthew’s genealogy traced the kingly line of David—the royal legal line. The question is, What is the significance of Luke’s genealogy? Two main possibilities exist.

1. Luke was tracing the line of Mary. Many interpreters argue that Luke was giving the genealogy of Mary, showing that she also was in the line of David and that therefore Jesus was qualified as the Messiah not only through Joseph (since he was the oldest legal heir) but also through Mary.

2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph. This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. In this view Jacob, Joseph’s uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and then Jesus would have been brought into the royal line.

Both views have problems which are difficult to answer, not the least of which is the fact that the two genealogies meet at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and then split a second time only to come together at Joseph and Jesus. (Cf. comments on Matt. 1:12.) Regardless of one’s view it is important to note an important aspect of the theology Luke expressed in his genealogy. He related Jesus not only to Abraham but all the way back to Adam and to God. This is an indication of the universal offer of salvation, which is common to his Gospel—that Jesus came to save all people—Gentiles as well as the nation of Israel (cf. Luke 2:32).

Luke 3:23 says, “And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.” Many believe that Luke is saying that Jesus was the grandson of Eli or Heli through Mary. Eli was Mary’s father and Jesus’ grandfather. By contrast, Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck, you already posted a link saying some think Matthew lists Joseph’s lineage and Luke lists Mary’s ... while others think it’s the other way around.

The truth is nobody knows if either are Mary’s since the Bible doesn’t stay. What it does say is that both are Joseph’s. Anything you state beyond that — is made up.

You do realize that Joseph is Jesus step dad don't you?


Joseph's marriage to Mary gives Jesus his legal right to be King.
Mary gives him the Davidic line through Nathan.

 

[Wyatt earp]

No its not...................

LOL

The Bible shows it is. Your hollow denials fail you as always.

try me again Bitch...............




Regarding the first condition, did Mary have brothers?
We have no record of it. The Bible does not mention brothers, but it does say she had a sister.
John 19:25, "Now there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." It is thought that the sister of Mary was Salome, the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John (Matthew 20:20, Mark 15:40).
Please see "The Genealogy of the Brethren", for more.

In the Jewish culture in those days, the mother who was widowed (assuming that Joseph was dead at this time) would have gone to her father, or brother, or to her other children. Apparently, her father was dead, she had no brothers, and she had no other children, so Jesus gave her to John in John 19:27.
The words of Jesus in John 19:27, and lack of evidence of male siblings, strongly suggest that the first condition was satisfied.
The second condition is a bit more involved:
Matthew 1:1-16, "(1) The book of the origin of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the son of Abraham. (2) Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judah.....(5)...Jesse begot David the king. (6) And David the king begot Solomon of the former wife of Uriah." (Bathsheba)
This Genealogy continues and we see in verse 16, "And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, and of her was born Jesus who is called Christ."
Notice that the descendant of David is Solomon. We shall see in Luke's genealogy, a different son of David.
Matthew clearly shows that the bloodline of Joseph does go back to the tribe of Judah, and through king David. If Jesus Christ is the Son of David, then His mother, Mary has to be also of the house of David and therefore by implication, of the tribe of Judah. As we have already seen in Romans 1:3, it could have not been said that the Son was born according to the flesh of the offspring of David unless Mary were of Davidic descent. We shall delve into this further later on.

Luke 1:26-27, "Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from GOD to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary."
We have already seen that Mary is implied as being of the house of David in Luke 1:32. If she were not of the house of David, then clearly, Jesus Christ could not have been descendant of David as do so many verses attest. She married within her tribe (by implication) and so the second condition appears to be satisfied.


Luke 2:4-5, "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child."
Thus Mary, in order to be betrothed to Joseph, had to be of the same house of David as he. Consequently, both conditions for the bloodline to continue through the female line are satisfactorily met by Mary.

”try me again Bitch...............”

You’re too funny.

And by the way, I’m dismissing you again because Luke still says it was Joseph who was descended from David, not Mary. Nowhere in the Bible does it show Mary was a descendant of David.

Shit, you even posted yourself, in big bold red letters, it’s “implied.”

Dumbfuck, implications are non-factual and highly subjective.

That’s why that’s all you have to argue.

yea because you are a heathen and evolved from a monkey, a little Sunday school kid knows Mary's lineage is in Luke you stupid fuck



Is Mary’s lineage in one of the Gospels?



The genealogy in Matt. 1:1f is traced through Joseph, Jesus’ legal (though not natural) father, and it establishes His claim and right to the throne of David (v. 6). The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 is evidently that of Mary, though some believe it is also Joseph’s, by assuming that Matthan (Matt 1:15) and Matthat (Luke 3:24) were the same person and Jacob (Matt 1:16) and Eli (Luke 3:23) were brothers (one being Joseph’s father and the other his uncle). See note on Luke 3:23.

Many conservative scholars have taken this view because of the many differences in the names between the two accounts. The biggest difference is that after David, many of the names are different. It would seem best to explain the difference by viewing Luke’s genealogy as tracing the physical ancestors of Christ through Mary, while Matthew’s genealogy traces the kingly line of Christ through Joseph.

The following is the comment from The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

In addition Luke’s and Matthew’s lists from David to Shealtiel (during the time of the Exile) differ. That is because the lists trace different lines. Luke traced David’s line through Nathan, whereas Matthew traced it through Solomon. Following Shealtiel’s son, Zerubbabel, the lists once again differ until both lists unite at Joseph whom, Luke noted, was “thought” to be the father of Jesus. Little doubt exists that Matthew’s genealogy traced the kingly line of David—the royal legal line. The question is, What is the significance of Luke’s genealogy? Two main possibilities exist.

1. Luke was tracing the line of Mary. Many interpreters argue that Luke was giving the genealogy of Mary, showing that she also was in the line of David and that therefore Jesus was qualified as the Messiah not only through Joseph (since he was the oldest legal heir) but also through Mary.

2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph. This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. In this view Jacob, Joseph’s uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and then Jesus would have been brought into the royal line.

Both views have problems which are difficult to answer, not the least of which is the fact that the two genealogies meet at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and then split a second time only to come together at Joseph and Jesus. (Cf. comments on Matt. 1:12.) Regardless of one’s view it is important to note an important aspect of the theology Luke expressed in his genealogy. He related Jesus not only to Abraham but all the way back to Adam and to God. This is an indication of the universal offer of salvation, which is common to his Gospel—that Jesus came to save all people—Gentiles as well as the nation of Israel (cf. Luke 2:32).

Luke 3:23 says, “And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.” Many believe that Luke is saying that Jesus was the grandson of Eli or Heli through Mary. Eli was Mary’s father and Jesus’ grandfather. By contrast, Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck, you already posted a link saying some think Matthew lists Joseph’s lineage and Luke lists Mary’s ... while others think it’s the other way around.

The truth is nobody knows if either are Mary’s since the Bible doesn’t stay. What it does say is that both are Joseph’s. Anything you state beyond that — is made up.

no one thinks its the other way around you fucking idiot...

it has always been Mathew is Joseph and Luke was Mary's



Genealogy of Christ
Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

It is granted on all sides that the Biblical genealogy of Christ implies a number of exegetical difficulties; but rationalists have no solid reason for refusing to admit any of the attempted solutions, nor can we agree with those recent writers who have given up all hope of harmonizing the genealogies of Christ found in the First and Third Gospels. The true state of the question will become plain by studying the Biblical genealogies of Christ first separately, then in juxtaposition, and finally in their relation to certain exceptions to their harmony.

St. Matthew's genealogy of Christ
The genealogy of Christ according to the First Evangelist descends from Abraham through three series of fourteen members each; the first fourteen belong to the patriarchal order, the second to the royal and the third to that of private citizens. Matthew 1:17, shows that this arrangement was intended; for the writer expressly states: "So all the generations, from Abraham to David, are fourteen generations. And from David to the transmigration of Babylon, are fourteen generations: and from the transmigration of Babylon to Christ are fourteen generations."

First Series
1. Abraham
2. Isaac
3. Jacob
4. Judas
5. Phares
6. Esron
7. Aram
8. Aminadab
9. Naasson
10. Salmon
11. Booz
12. Obed
13. Jesse
14. David Second Series
1. Solomon
2. Roboam
3. Abia
4. Asa
5. Josaphat
6. Joram
7. Ozias
8. Joatham
9. Achaz
10. Ezechias
11. Manasses
12. Amon
13. Josias
14. Jechonias Third Series
1. Jechonias
2. Salathiel
3. Zorobabel
4. Abiud
5. Eliacim
6. Azor
7. Sadoe
8. Achim
9. Eliud
10. Eleazar
11. Mathan
12. Jacob
13. Joseph
14. Jesus
The list of the First Evangelist omits certain members in Christ's genealogy:

• The writer gives only three names for the time of the Egyptian exile (Esron, Aram, and Aminadab), though the period lasted 215 or 430 years; this agrees with Genesis 15:16, where God promises to lead Israel back in the fourth generation. But according to Genesis 15:13, the stranger shall afflict Israel for four hundred years.
• The three names Booz, Obed, and Jesse cover a period of 366 years. Omitting a number of other less probable explanations, the difficulty is solved most easily by the admission of a lacuna between Obed and Jesse.
• According to I Paralipomenon 3:11-12, Ochozias, Joas, and Amasias intervene between Joram and Azarias (the Ozias of St. Matthew); these three names cannot have been unknown to the Evangelist, nor can it be supposed that they were omitted by transcribers, for this conjecture would destroy the Evangelist's computation of fourteen kings.
• According to I Paralipomenon 3:15, Joakim intervenes between Josias and Jechonias. We may waive the question whether St. Matthew speaks of only one Jechonias or of two persons bearing that name; nor need we state here all the doubts and difficulties connected with either answer.
• St. Matthew places only nine links between Zorobabel and St. Joseph for a period covering some 530 years, so that each generation must have lasted more than 50 years. The genealogy as given in St. Luke enumerates eighteen generations for the same period, a number which harmonizes better with the ordinary course of events.

As to the omission of members in genealogical lists see GENEALOGY.
St. Luke's genealogy of Christ
The genealogy in Luke 3:23-28 ascends from Joseph to Adam or rather to God; this is the first striking difference between the genealogies as presented in the First and Third Gospel. Another difference is found in their collocation: St. Matthew places his list at the beginning of his Gospel; St. Luke, at the beginning of the public life of Christ. The artificial character of St. Luke's genealogy may be seen in the following table:

First Series
1. Jesus
2. Joseph
3. Heli
4. Mathat
5. Levi
6. Melchi
7. Janne
8. Joseph
9. Mathathias
10. Amos
11. Nahum
12. Hesli
13. Nagge
14. Mahath
15. Mathathias
16. Semei
17. Joseph
18. Juda
19. Joanna
20. Reza
21. Zorobabel Second Series
22. Salathiel
23. Neri
24. Melchi
25. Addi
26. Cosan
27. Helmadan
28. Her
29. Jesus
30. Eliezer
31. Jorim
32. Mathat
33. Levi
34. Simeon
35. Judas
36. Joseph
37. Jona
38. Eliakim
39. Melea
40. Menna
41. Mathatha
42. Nathan Third Series
43. David
44. Jesse
45. Obed
46. Booz
47. Salmon
48. Naasson
49. Aminadab
50. Aram
51. Esron
52. Phares
53. Judas
54. Jacob
55. Isaac
56. Abraham Fourth Series
57. Thare
58. Nachor
59. Sarug
60. Ragau
61. Phaleg
62. Heber
63. Sale
64. Cainan
65. Arphaxad
66. Sem
67. Noah
68. Lamech
69. Mathusale
70. Henoch
71. Jared
72. Malaleel
73. Cainan
74. Henos
75. Seth
76. Adam
77. God
The artificial structure of this list may be inferred from the following peculiarities: it contains eleven septenaries of names; three septenaries bring us from Jesus to the Captivity; three, from the captivity to the time of David; two, from David to Abraham; three again from the time of Abraham to the creation of man. St. Luke does not explicitly draw attention to the artificial construction of his list, but this silence does not prove that its recurring number of names was not intended, at least in the Evangelist's source. In St. Luke's genealogy, too, the names Jesse, Obed, Booz, cover a period of 366 years; Aminadab, Aram, Esron fill a gap of 430 (or 215) years, so that here several names must have been omitted. In the fourth series, which gives the names of the antediluvianand postdiluvian patriarchs, Cainan has been inserted according to the Septuagint reading; the Hebrew text does not contain this name.

Harmony between St. Matthew's and St. Luke's genealogy of Christ
The fourth series of St. Luke's list covers the period between Abraham and the creation of man; St. Matthew does not touch upon this time, so that there can be no question of any harmony. The third series of St. Luke agrees name for name with the first of St. Matthew; only the order of names is inverted. In this section the genealogies are rather identical than merely harmonious. In the first and second series, St. Luke gives David's descendants through his son Nathan, while St. Matthew enumerates in his second and third series David's descendants through Solomon. It is true that the First Gospel gives only twenty-eight names for this period, against the forty-two names of the Third Gospel; but it cannot be expected that two different lines of descendants should exhibit the same number of links for the period of a thousand years. Abstracting from the inspired character of the sources, one is disposed to regard the number given by the Third Evangelist as more in harmony with the length of time than the number of the First Gospel; but we have pointed out that St. Matthew consciously omitted a number of names in his genealogical list, in order to reduce them to the required multiple of seven.

Exceptions to the preceding explanation
Three main difficulties are advanced against the foregoing harmony of the genealogies: First, how can they converge in St. Joseph, if they give different lineages from David downward? Secondly, how can we account for their convergence in Salathiel and Zorobabel? Thirdly, what do we know about the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin?

First difficulty
The convergence of the two distinct genealogical lines in the person of St. Joseph, has been explained in two ways:

(a) St. Matthew's genealogy is that of St. Joseph; St. Luke's, that of the Blessed Virgin. This contention implies that St. Luke's genealogy only seemingly includes the name of Joseph. It is based on the received Greek text, on (os enomizeto ouios Ioseph) tou Heli, "being the son (as it was supposed, of Joseph, but really) of Heli". This parenthesis really eliminates the name of Joseph from St. Luke's genealogy, and makes Christ, by means of the Blessed Virgin, directly a son of Heli. This view is supported by a tradition which names the father of the Blessed Virgin "Joachim", a variant form of Eliacim or its abbreviation Eli, a variant of Heli, which latter is the form found in the Third Evangelist's genealogy. But these two consideration, viz. the received text and the traditional name of the father of Mary, which favour the view that St. Luke gives the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin, are offset by two similar considerations, which make St. Luke's list terminate with the name of Joseph. First, the Greek text preferred by the textual critics reads, on ouios, hos enomizeto, Ioseph tou Heli, "being the son, as it was supposed, of Joseph, son of Heli", so that the above parenthesis is rendered less probable. Secondly, according to Patrizi, the view that St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary began to be advocated only towards the end of the fifteenth century by Annius of Viterbo, and acquired adherents in the sixteenth. St. Hilary mentions the opinion as adopted by many, but he himself rejects it (Mai, "Nov. Bibl, Patr.", t. I, 477). It may be safely said that patristic tradition does not regard St. Luke's list as representing the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin.

(b) Both St. Matthew and St. Luke give the genealogy of St. Joseph, the one through the lineage of Solomon, the other through that of Nathan. But how can the lines converge in St. Joseph? St. Augustine suggested that Joseph, the son of Jacob and the descendant of David through Solomon, might have been adopted by Heli, thus becoming the adoptive descendant of David through Nathan. But Augustine was the first to abandon this theory after learning the explanation offered by Julius Africanus. According to the latter, Estha married Mathan, a descendant of David through Solomon, and became the mother of Jacob; after Mathan's death she took for her second husband Mathat, a descendent of David through Nathan, and by him became the mother of Heli. Jacob and Heli were, therefore, uterine brothers. Heli married, but died without offspring; his widow, therefore, became the levirate wife of Jacob, and gave birth to Joseph, who was the carnal son of Jacob, but the legal son of Heli, thus combining in his person two lineages of David's descendants.

Second difficulty
The second difficulty urged against the harmony between the two genealogies is based on the occurrence of the two names Zorobabel and Salathiel in both lists; here again the two distinct lineages of David's descendants appear to converge. And again, two answers are possible:

(a) It is more commonly admitted that the two names in St. Matthew's list are identical with the two in St. Luke's series; for they must have lived about the same time, and the names are so rare, that it would be strange to find them occurring at the same time, in the same order, in two different genealogical series. But two levirate marriages will explain the difficulty. Melchi, David's descendant through Nathan, may have begotten Neri by a widow of the father of Jechonias; this made Neri and Jechonias uterine brothers. Jechonias may then have contracted a levirate marriage with the widow of the childless Neri, and begotten Salathiel, who was therefore the leviratical son of Neri. Salathiel's son Zorobabel begat Abiud; but he also may have been obliged to contract a levirate marriage with the widow of a childless legal relative belonging to David's descendants through Nathan, thus begetting Reza, who legally continued Nathan's lineage.

(b) A more simple solution of the difficulty is obtained, if we do not admit that the Salathiel and Zorobabel occurring in St. Matthew's genealogy are identical with those in St. Luke's. The above proofs for their identity are not cogent. If Salathiel and Zorobabel distinguished themselves at all among the descendants of Solomon, it is not astonishing that about the same time two members of Nathan's descendants should be called after them. The reader will observe that we suggest only possible answers to the difficulty; as long as such possibilities can be pointed out, our opponents have no right to deny that the genealogies which are found in the First and Third Gospel can be harmonized.

Third difficulty
How can Jesus Christ be called "son of David", if the Blessed Virgin is not a daughter of David?

(a) If by virtue of Joseph's marriage with Mary, Jesus could be called the son of Joseph, he can for the same reason be called "son of David" (St. Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels, II, i, 2).

(b) Tradition tells us that Mary too was a descendant of David. According to Numbers 36:6-12, an only daughter had to marry within her own family so as to secure the right of inheritance. After St. Justin (Adv. Tryph. 100) and St. Ignatius (Letter to the Ephesians 18), the Fathers generally agree in maintaining Mary's Davidic descent, whether they knew this from an oral tradition or inferred it from Scripture, e.g. Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8. St. John Damascene (De fid. Orth., IV, 14) states that Mary's great-grandfather, Panther, was a brother of Mathat; her grandfather, Barpanther, was Heli's cousin; and her father, Joachim, was a cousin of Joseph, Heli's levirate son. Here Mathat has been substituted for Melchi, since the text used by St. John Damascene, Julius Africanus, St. Irenæus, St. Ambrose, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus omitted the two generations separating Heli from Melchi. At any rate, tradition presents the Blessed Virgin as descending from David through Nathan.

 

[Faun]

Joseph and Mary were 1st cousins.

That’s nice; but not found anywhere in the New Testament. And again, Luke only mentions the genealogy of Joseph, not Mary.

And then there’s another contradiction... Matthew, also listing the lineage of Joseph’s genealogy, lists 17 generations from King David to Zorobabel (including David). However, 1 Chronicles lists 21 generations.

So which one is right?

Joseph and Mary were 1st cousins.

That’s nice; but not found anywhere in the New Testament. And again, Luke only mentions the genealogy of Joseph, not Mary.

And then there’s another contradiction... Matthew, also listing the lineage of Joseph’s genealogy, lists 17 generations from King David to Zorobabel (including David). However, 1 Chronicles lists 21 generations.

So which one is right?

Mary and Joseph come from the same tribe.
Elizabeth and Mary were related.
Elizabeth's tribe came from Levi.
Mary's tribe came from Juda.
Juda and Levi were brothers.

Matthew's genealogy is direct.
Luke's genealogy includes levirate marriages.

1st chronicles lists the whole line, back to Adam.

Both 1 Chronicles and Matthew list the generations from David to Zorobabel — only there are 4 fewer generations mentioned in Matthew. Isn’t the Bible supposed to be perfect? How do you account for this discrepancy?

Do you mean Zerubbabel?
Matthew has it listed starting from Abraham,Chronicles does not list him, but goes completely back to Adam.

Last time ... now pay attention ...

1 Chronicles 3 lists 21 generations from David to Zerubbabel:

1. David
2. Solomon
3. Rehoboam
4. Abia
5. Asa
6. Jehoshaphat
7. Joram
8. Ahaziah
9. Joash
10. Amaziah
11. Azariah
12. Jotham
13. Ahaz
14. Hezekiah
15. Manasseh
16. Amon
17. Josiah
18. Jehoiakim
19. Jeconiah
20. Pedaiah
21. Zerubbabel

But Matthew 1 listing the generations from David to Zorobabel, show only 17 generations:

1. David
2. Solomon
3. Roboam
4. Abia
5. Asa
6. Josaphat
7. Joram
8. Ozias
9. Joatham
10. Achaz
11. Ezekias
12. Manasses
13. Amon
14. Josias
15. Jechonias
16. Salathiel
17. Zorobabel

How can there be 4 names missing if the New Testament is perfect?

 

[Faun]

LOL

The Bible shows it is. Your hollow denials fail you as always.

try me again Bitch...............




Regarding the first condition, did Mary have brothers?
We have no record of it. The Bible does not mention brothers, but it does say she had a sister.
John 19:25, "Now there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." It is thought that the sister of Mary was Salome, the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John (Matthew 20:20, Mark 15:40).
Please see "The Genealogy of the Brethren", for more.

In the Jewish culture in those days, the mother who was widowed (assuming that Joseph was dead at this time) would have gone to her father, or brother, or to her other children. Apparently, her father was dead, she had no brothers, and she had no other children, so Jesus gave her to John in John 19:27.
The words of Jesus in John 19:27, and lack of evidence of male siblings, strongly suggest that the first condition was satisfied.
The second condition is a bit more involved:
Matthew 1:1-16, "(1) The book of the origin of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the son of Abraham. (2) Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judah.....(5)...Jesse begot David the king. (6) And David the king begot Solomon of the former wife of Uriah." (Bathsheba)
This Genealogy continues and we see in verse 16, "And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, and of her was born Jesus who is called Christ."
Notice that the descendant of David is Solomon. We shall see in Luke's genealogy, a different son of David.
Matthew clearly shows that the bloodline of Joseph does go back to the tribe of Judah, and through king David. If Jesus Christ is the Son of David, then His mother, Mary has to be also of the house of David and therefore by implication, of the tribe of Judah. As we have already seen in Romans 1:3, it could have not been said that the Son was born according to the flesh of the offspring of David unless Mary were of Davidic descent. We shall delve into this further later on.

Luke 1:26-27, "Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from GOD to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary."
We have already seen that Mary is implied as being of the house of David in Luke 1:32. If she were not of the house of David, then clearly, Jesus Christ could not have been descendant of David as do so many verses attest. She married within her tribe (by implication) and so the second condition appears to be satisfied.


Luke 2:4-5, "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child."
Thus Mary, in order to be betrothed to Joseph, had to be of the same house of David as he. Consequently, both conditions for the bloodline to continue through the female line are satisfactorily met by Mary.

”try me again Bitch...............”

You’re too funny.

And by the way, I’m dismissing you again because Luke still says it was Joseph who was descended from David, not Mary. Nowhere in the Bible does it show Mary was a descendant of David.

Shit, you even posted yourself, in big bold red letters, it’s “implied.”

Dumbfuck, implications are non-factual and highly subjective.

That’s why that’s all you have to argue.

yea because you are a heathen and evolved from a monkey, a little Sunday school kid knows Mary's lineage is in Luke you stupid fuck



Is Mary’s lineage in one of the Gospels?



The genealogy in Matt. 1:1f is traced through Joseph, Jesus’ legal (though not natural) father, and it establishes His claim and right to the throne of David (v. 6). The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 is evidently that of Mary, though some believe it is also Joseph’s, by assuming that Matthan (Matt 1:15) and Matthat (Luke 3:24) were the same person and Jacob (Matt 1:16) and Eli (Luke 3:23) were brothers (one being Joseph’s father and the other his uncle). See note on Luke 3:23.

Many conservative scholars have taken this view because of the many differences in the names between the two accounts. The biggest difference is that after David, many of the names are different. It would seem best to explain the difference by viewing Luke’s genealogy as tracing the physical ancestors of Christ through Mary, while Matthew’s genealogy traces the kingly line of Christ through Joseph.

The following is the comment from The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

In addition Luke’s and Matthew’s lists from David to Shealtiel (during the time of the Exile) differ. That is because the lists trace different lines. Luke traced David’s line through Nathan, whereas Matthew traced it through Solomon. Following Shealtiel’s son, Zerubbabel, the lists once again differ until both lists unite at Joseph whom, Luke noted, was “thought” to be the father of Jesus. Little doubt exists that Matthew’s genealogy traced the kingly line of David—the royal legal line. The question is, What is the significance of Luke’s genealogy? Two main possibilities exist.

1. Luke was tracing the line of Mary. Many interpreters argue that Luke was giving the genealogy of Mary, showing that she also was in the line of David and that therefore Jesus was qualified as the Messiah not only through Joseph (since he was the oldest legal heir) but also through Mary.

2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph. This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. In this view Jacob, Joseph’s uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and then Jesus would have been brought into the royal line.

Both views have problems which are difficult to answer, not the least of which is the fact that the two genealogies meet at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and then split a second time only to come together at Joseph and Jesus. (Cf. comments on Matt. 1:12.) Regardless of one’s view it is important to note an important aspect of the theology Luke expressed in his genealogy. He related Jesus not only to Abraham but all the way back to Adam and to God. This is an indication of the universal offer of salvation, which is common to his Gospel—that Jesus came to save all people—Gentiles as well as the nation of Israel (cf. Luke 2:32).

Luke 3:23 says, “And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.” Many believe that Luke is saying that Jesus was the grandson of Eli or Heli through Mary. Eli was Mary’s father and Jesus’ grandfather. By contrast, Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck, you already posted a link saying some think Matthew lists Joseph’s lineage and Luke lists Mary’s ... while others think it’s the other way around.

The truth is nobody knows if either are Mary’s since the Bible doesn’t stay. What it does say is that both are Joseph’s. Anything you state beyond that — is made up.

LOL

The Bible shows it is. Your hollow denials fail you as always.

try me again Bitch...............




Regarding the first condition, did Mary have brothers?
We have no record of it. The Bible does not mention brothers, but it does say she had a sister.
John 19:25, "Now there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." It is thought that the sister of Mary was Salome, the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John (Matthew 20:20, Mark 15:40).
Please see "The Genealogy of the Brethren", for more.

In the Jewish culture in those days, the mother who was widowed (assuming that Joseph was dead at this time) would have gone to her father, or brother, or to her other children. Apparently, her father was dead, she had no brothers, and she had no other children, so Jesus gave her to John in John 19:27.
The words of Jesus in John 19:27, and lack of evidence of male siblings, strongly suggest that the first condition was satisfied.
The second condition is a bit more involved:
Matthew 1:1-16, "(1) The book of the origin of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the son of Abraham. (2) Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judah.....(5)...Jesse begot David the king. (6) And David the king begot Solomon of the former wife of Uriah." (Bathsheba)
This Genealogy continues and we see in verse 16, "And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, and of her was born Jesus who is called Christ."
Notice that the descendant of David is Solomon. We shall see in Luke's genealogy, a different son of David.
Matthew clearly shows that the bloodline of Joseph does go back to the tribe of Judah, and through king David. If Jesus Christ is the Son of David, then His mother, Mary has to be also of the house of David and therefore by implication, of the tribe of Judah. As we have already seen in Romans 1:3, it could have not been said that the Son was born according to the flesh of the offspring of David unless Mary were of Davidic descent. We shall delve into this further later on.

Luke 1:26-27, "Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from GOD to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary."
We have already seen that Mary is implied as being of the house of David in Luke 1:32. If she were not of the house of David, then clearly, Jesus Christ could not have been descendant of David as do so many verses attest. She married within her tribe (by implication) and so the second condition appears to be satisfied.


Luke 2:4-5, "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child."
Thus Mary, in order to be betrothed to Joseph, had to be of the same house of David as he. Consequently, both conditions for the bloodline to continue through the female line are satisfactorily met by Mary.

”try me again Bitch...............”

You’re too funny.

And by the way, I’m dismissing you again because Luke still says it was Joseph who was descended from David, not Mary. Nowhere in the Bible does it show Mary was a descendant of David.

Shit, you even posted yourself, in big bold red letters, it’s “implied.”

Dumbfuck, implications are non-factual and highly subjective.

That’s why that’s all you have to argue.

yea because you are a heathen and evolved from a monkey, a little Sunday school kid knows Mary's lineage is in Luke you stupid fuck



Is Mary’s lineage in one of the Gospels?



The genealogy in Matt. 1:1f is traced through Joseph, Jesus’ legal (though not natural) father, and it establishes His claim and right to the throne of David (v. 6). The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 is evidently that of Mary, though some believe it is also Joseph’s, by assuming that Matthan (Matt 1:15) and Matthat (Luke 3:24) were the same person and Jacob (Matt 1:16) and Eli (Luke 3:23) were brothers (one being Joseph’s father and the other his uncle). See note on Luke 3:23.

Many conservative scholars have taken this view because of the many differences in the names between the two accounts. The biggest difference is that after David, many of the names are different. It would seem best to explain the difference by viewing Luke’s genealogy as tracing the physical ancestors of Christ through Mary, while Matthew’s genealogy traces the kingly line of Christ through Joseph.

The following is the comment from The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

In addition Luke’s and Matthew’s lists from David to Shealtiel (during the time of the Exile) differ. That is because the lists trace different lines. Luke traced David’s line through Nathan, whereas Matthew traced it through Solomon. Following Shealtiel’s son, Zerubbabel, the lists once again differ until both lists unite at Joseph whom, Luke noted, was “thought” to be the father of Jesus. Little doubt exists that Matthew’s genealogy traced the kingly line of David—the royal legal line. The question is, What is the significance of Luke’s genealogy? Two main possibilities exist.

1. Luke was tracing the line of Mary. Many interpreters argue that Luke was giving the genealogy of Mary, showing that she also was in the line of David and that therefore Jesus was qualified as the Messiah not only through Joseph (since he was the oldest legal heir) but also through Mary.

2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph. This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. In this view Jacob, Joseph’s uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and then Jesus would have been brought into the royal line.

Both views have problems which are difficult to answer, not the least of which is the fact that the two genealogies meet at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and then split a second time only to come together at Joseph and Jesus. (Cf. comments on Matt. 1:12.) Regardless of one’s view it is important to note an important aspect of the theology Luke expressed in his genealogy. He related Jesus not only to Abraham but all the way back to Adam and to God. This is an indication of the universal offer of salvation, which is common to his Gospel—that Jesus came to save all people—Gentiles as well as the nation of Israel (cf. Luke 2:32).

Luke 3:23 says, “And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.” Many believe that Luke is saying that Jesus was the grandson of Eli or Heli through Mary. Eli was Mary’s father and Jesus’ grandfather. By contrast, Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck, you already posted a link saying some think Matthew lists Joseph’s lineage and Luke lists Mary’s ... while others think it’s the other way around.

The truth is nobody knows if either are Mary’s since the Bible doesn’t stay. What it does say is that both are Joseph’s. Anything you state beyond that — is made up.

You do realize that Joseph is Jesus step dad don't you?


Joseph's marriage to Mary gives Jesus his legal right to be King.
Mary gives him the Davidic line through Nathan.

What I realize is that Jesus was a fraud, not a king, which is why he was largely rejected at the time as Mashiach and why there are flaws in the New Testament.

 

[Faun]

LOL

The Bible shows it is. Your hollow denials fail you as always.

try me again Bitch...............




Regarding the first condition, did Mary have brothers?
We have no record of it. The Bible does not mention brothers, but it does say she had a sister.
John 19:25, "Now there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." It is thought that the sister of Mary was Salome, the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John (Matthew 20:20, Mark 15:40).
Please see "The Genealogy of the Brethren", for more.

In the Jewish culture in those days, the mother who was widowed (assuming that Joseph was dead at this time) would have gone to her father, or brother, or to her other children. Apparently, her father was dead, she had no brothers, and she had no other children, so Jesus gave her to John in John 19:27.
The words of Jesus in John 19:27, and lack of evidence of male siblings, strongly suggest that the first condition was satisfied.
The second condition is a bit more involved:
Matthew 1:1-16, "(1) The book of the origin of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the son of Abraham. (2) Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judah.....(5)...Jesse begot David the king. (6) And David the king begot Solomon of the former wife of Uriah." (Bathsheba)
This Genealogy continues and we see in verse 16, "And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, and of her was born Jesus who is called Christ."
Notice that the descendant of David is Solomon. We shall see in Luke's genealogy, a different son of David.
Matthew clearly shows that the bloodline of Joseph does go back to the tribe of Judah, and through king David. If Jesus Christ is the Son of David, then His mother, Mary has to be also of the house of David and therefore by implication, of the tribe of Judah. As we have already seen in Romans 1:3, it could have not been said that the Son was born according to the flesh of the offspring of David unless Mary were of Davidic descent. We shall delve into this further later on.

Luke 1:26-27, "Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from GOD to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary."
We have already seen that Mary is implied as being of the house of David in Luke 1:32. If she were not of the house of David, then clearly, Jesus Christ could not have been descendant of David as do so many verses attest. She married within her tribe (by implication) and so the second condition appears to be satisfied.


Luke 2:4-5, "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child."
Thus Mary, in order to be betrothed to Joseph, had to be of the same house of David as he. Consequently, both conditions for the bloodline to continue through the female line are satisfactorily met by Mary.

”try me again Bitch...............”

You’re too funny.

And by the way, I’m dismissing you again because Luke still says it was Joseph who was descended from David, not Mary. Nowhere in the Bible does it show Mary was a descendant of David.

Shit, you even posted yourself, in big bold red letters, it’s “implied.”

Dumbfuck, implications are non-factual and highly subjective.

That’s why that’s all you have to argue.

yea because you are a heathen and evolved from a monkey, a little Sunday school kid knows Mary's lineage is in Luke you stupid fuck



Is Mary’s lineage in one of the Gospels?



The genealogy in Matt. 1:1f is traced through Joseph, Jesus’ legal (though not natural) father, and it establishes His claim and right to the throne of David (v. 6). The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 is evidently that of Mary, though some believe it is also Joseph’s, by assuming that Matthan (Matt 1:15) and Matthat (Luke 3:24) were the same person and Jacob (Matt 1:16) and Eli (Luke 3:23) were brothers (one being Joseph’s father and the other his uncle). See note on Luke 3:23.

Many conservative scholars have taken this view because of the many differences in the names between the two accounts. The biggest difference is that after David, many of the names are different. It would seem best to explain the difference by viewing Luke’s genealogy as tracing the physical ancestors of Christ through Mary, while Matthew’s genealogy traces the kingly line of Christ through Joseph.

The following is the comment from The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

In addition Luke’s and Matthew’s lists from David to Shealtiel (during the time of the Exile) differ. That is because the lists trace different lines. Luke traced David’s line through Nathan, whereas Matthew traced it through Solomon. Following Shealtiel’s son, Zerubbabel, the lists once again differ until both lists unite at Joseph whom, Luke noted, was “thought” to be the father of Jesus. Little doubt exists that Matthew’s genealogy traced the kingly line of David—the royal legal line. The question is, What is the significance of Luke’s genealogy? Two main possibilities exist.

1. Luke was tracing the line of Mary. Many interpreters argue that Luke was giving the genealogy of Mary, showing that she also was in the line of David and that therefore Jesus was qualified as the Messiah not only through Joseph (since he was the oldest legal heir) but also through Mary.

2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph. This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. In this view Jacob, Joseph’s uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and then Jesus would have been brought into the royal line.

Both views have problems which are difficult to answer, not the least of which is the fact that the two genealogies meet at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and then split a second time only to come together at Joseph and Jesus. (Cf. comments on Matt. 1:12.) Regardless of one’s view it is important to note an important aspect of the theology Luke expressed in his genealogy. He related Jesus not only to Abraham but all the way back to Adam and to God. This is an indication of the universal offer of salvation, which is common to his Gospel—that Jesus came to save all people—Gentiles as well as the nation of Israel (cf. Luke 2:32).

Luke 3:23 says, “And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.” Many believe that Luke is saying that Jesus was the grandson of Eli or Heli through Mary. Eli was Mary’s father and Jesus’ grandfather. By contrast, Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck, you already posted a link saying some think Matthew lists Joseph’s lineage and Luke lists Mary’s ... while others think it’s the other way around.

The truth is nobody knows if either are Mary’s since the Bible doesn’t stay. What it does say is that both are Joseph’s. Anything you state beyond that — is made up.

no one thinks its the other way around you fucking idiot...

it has always been Mathew is Joseph and Luke was Mary's



Genealogy of Christ
Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

It is granted on all sides that the Biblical genealogy of Christ implies a number of exegetical difficulties; but rationalists have no solid reason for refusing to admit any of the attempted solutions, nor can we agree with those recent writers who have given up all hope of harmonizing the genealogies of Christ found in the First and Third Gospels. The true state of the question will become plain by studying the Biblical genealogies of Christ first separately, then in juxtaposition, and finally in their relation to certain exceptions to their harmony.

St. Matthew's genealogy of Christ
The genealogy of Christ according to the First Evangelist descends from Abraham through three series of fourteen members each; the first fourteen belong to the patriarchal order, the second to the royal and the third to that of private citizens. Matthew 1:17, shows that this arrangement was intended; for the writer expressly states: "So all the generations, from Abraham to David, are fourteen generations. And from David to the transmigration of Babylon, are fourteen generations: and from the transmigration of Babylon to Christ are fourteen generations."

First Series
1. Abraham
2. Isaac
3. Jacob
4. Judas
5. Phares
6. Esron
7. Aram
8. Aminadab
9. Naasson
10. Salmon
11. Booz
12. Obed
13. Jesse
14. David Second Series
1. Solomon
2. Roboam
3. Abia
4. Asa
5. Josaphat
6. Joram
7. Ozias
8. Joatham
9. Achaz
10. Ezechias
11. Manasses
12. Amon
13. Josias
14. Jechonias Third Series
1. Jechonias
2. Salathiel
3. Zorobabel
4. Abiud
5. Eliacim
6. Azor
7. Sadoe
8. Achim
9. Eliud
10. Eleazar
11. Mathan
12. Jacob
13. Joseph
14. Jesus
The list of the First Evangelist omits certain members in Christ's genealogy:

• The writer gives only three names for the time of the Egyptian exile (Esron, Aram, and Aminadab), though the period lasted 215 or 430 years; this agrees with Genesis 15:16, where God promises to lead Israel back in the fourth generation. But according to Genesis 15:13, the stranger shall afflict Israel for four hundred years.
• The three names Booz, Obed, and Jesse cover a period of 366 years. Omitting a number of other less probable explanations, the difficulty is solved most easily by the admission of a lacuna between Obed and Jesse.
• According to I Paralipomenon 3:11-12, Ochozias, Joas, and Amasias intervene between Joram and Azarias (the Ozias of St. Matthew); these three names cannot have been unknown to the Evangelist, nor can it be supposed that they were omitted by transcribers, for this conjecture would destroy the Evangelist's computation of fourteen kings.
• According to I Paralipomenon 3:15, Joakim intervenes between Josias and Jechonias. We may waive the question whether St. Matthew speaks of only one Jechonias or of two persons bearing that name; nor need we state here all the doubts and difficulties connected with either answer.
• St. Matthew places only nine links between Zorobabel and St. Joseph for a period covering some 530 years, so that each generation must have lasted more than 50 years. The genealogy as given in St. Luke enumerates eighteen generations for the same period, a number which harmonizes better with the ordinary course of events.

As to the omission of members in genealogical lists see GENEALOGY.
St. Luke's genealogy of Christ
The genealogy in Luke 3:23-28 ascends from Joseph to Adam or rather to God; this is the first striking difference between the genealogies as presented in the First and Third Gospel. Another difference is found in their collocation: St. Matthew places his list at the beginning of his Gospel; St. Luke, at the beginning of the public life of Christ. The artificial character of St. Luke's genealogy may be seen in the following table:

First Series
1. Jesus
2. Joseph
3. Heli
4. Mathat
5. Levi
6. Melchi
7. Janne
8. Joseph
9. Mathathias
10. Amos
11. Nahum
12. Hesli
13. Nagge
14. Mahath
15. Mathathias
16. Semei
17. Joseph
18. Juda
19. Joanna
20. Reza
21. Zorobabel Second Series
22. Salathiel
23. Neri
24. Melchi
25. Addi
26. Cosan
27. Helmadan
28. Her
29. Jesus
30. Eliezer
31. Jorim
32. Mathat
33. Levi
34. Simeon
35. Judas
36. Joseph
37. Jona
38. Eliakim
39. Melea
40. Menna
41. Mathatha
42. Nathan Third Series
43. David
44. Jesse
45. Obed
46. Booz
47. Salmon
48. Naasson
49. Aminadab
50. Aram
51. Esron
52. Phares
53. Judas
54. Jacob
55. Isaac
56. Abraham Fourth Series
57. Thare
58. Nachor
59. Sarug
60. Ragau
61. Phaleg
62. Heber
63. Sale
64. Cainan
65. Arphaxad
66. Sem
67. Noah
68. Lamech
69. Mathusale
70. Henoch
71. Jared
72. Malaleel
73. Cainan
74. Henos
75. Seth
76. Adam
77. God
The artificial structure of this list may be inferred from the following peculiarities: it contains eleven septenaries of names; three septenaries bring us from Jesus to the Captivity; three, from the captivity to the time of David; two, from David to Abraham; three again from the time of Abraham to the creation of man. St. Luke does not explicitly draw attention to the artificial construction of his list, but this silence does not prove that its recurring number of names was not intended, at least in the Evangelist's source. In St. Luke's genealogy, too, the names Jesse, Obed, Booz, cover a period of 366 years; Aminadab, Aram, Esron fill a gap of 430 (or 215) years, so that here several names must have been omitted. In the fourth series, which gives the names of the antediluvianand postdiluvian patriarchs, Cainan has been inserted according to the Septuagint reading; the Hebrew text does not contain this name.

Harmony between St. Matthew's and St. Luke's genealogy of Christ
The fourth series of St. Luke's list covers the period between Abraham and the creation of man; St. Matthew does not touch upon this time, so that there can be no question of any harmony. The third series of St. Luke agrees name for name with the first of St. Matthew; only the order of names is inverted. In this section the genealogies are rather identical than merely harmonious. In the first and second series, St. Luke gives David's descendants through his son Nathan, while St. Matthew enumerates in his second and third series David's descendants through Solomon. It is true that the First Gospel gives only twenty-eight names for this period, against the forty-two names of the Third Gospel; but it cannot be expected that two different lines of descendants should exhibit the same number of links for the period of a thousand years. Abstracting from the inspired character of the sources, one is disposed to regard the number given by the Third Evangelist as more in harmony with the length of time than the number of the First Gospel; but we have pointed out that St. Matthew consciously omitted a number of names in his genealogical list, in order to reduce them to the required multiple of seven.

Exceptions to the preceding explanation
Three main difficulties are advanced against the foregoing harmony of the genealogies: First, how can they converge in St. Joseph, if they give different lineages from David downward? Secondly, how can we account for their convergence in Salathiel and Zorobabel? Thirdly, what do we know about the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin?

First difficulty
The convergence of the two distinct genealogical lines in the person of St. Joseph, has been explained in two ways:

(a) St. Matthew's genealogy is that of St. Joseph; St. Luke's, that of the Blessed Virgin. This contention implies that St. Luke's genealogy only seemingly includes the name of Joseph. It is based on the received Greek text, on (os enomizeto ouios Ioseph) tou Heli, "being the son (as it was supposed, of Joseph, but really) of Heli". This parenthesis really eliminates the name of Joseph from St. Luke's genealogy, and makes Christ, by means of the Blessed Virgin, directly a son of Heli. This view is supported by a tradition which names the father of the Blessed Virgin "Joachim", a variant form of Eliacim or its abbreviation Eli, a variant of Heli, which latter is the form found in the Third Evangelist's genealogy. But these two consideration, viz. the received text and the traditional name of the father of Mary, which favour the view that St. Luke gives the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin, are offset by two similar considerations, which make St. Luke's list terminate with the name of Joseph. First, the Greek text preferred by the textual critics reads, on ouios, hos enomizeto, Ioseph tou Heli, "being the son, as it was supposed, of Joseph, son of Heli", so that the above parenthesis is rendered less probable. Secondly, according to Patrizi, the view that St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary began to be advocated only towards the end of the fifteenth century by Annius of Viterbo, and acquired adherents in the sixteenth. St. Hilary mentions the opinion as adopted by many, but he himself rejects it (Mai, "Nov. Bibl, Patr.", t. I, 477). It may be safely said that patristic tradition does not regard St. Luke's list as representing the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin.

(b) Both St. Matthew and St. Luke give the genealogy of St. Joseph, the one through the lineage of Solomon, the other through that of Nathan. But how can the lines converge in St. Joseph? St. Augustine suggested that Joseph, the son of Jacob and the descendant of David through Solomon, might have been adopted by Heli, thus becoming the adoptive descendant of David through Nathan. But Augustine was the first to abandon this theory after learning the explanation offered by Julius Africanus. According to the latter, Estha married Mathan, a descendant of David through Solomon, and became the mother of Jacob; after Mathan's death she took for her second husband Mathat, a descendent of David through Nathan, and by him became the mother of Heli. Jacob and Heli were, therefore, uterine brothers. Heli married, but died without offspring; his widow, therefore, became the levirate wife of Jacob, and gave birth to Joseph, who was the carnal son of Jacob, but the legal son of Heli, thus combining in his person two lineages of David's descendants.

Second difficulty
The second difficulty urged against the harmony between the two genealogies is based on the occurrence of the two names Zorobabel and Salathiel in both lists; here again the two distinct lineages of David's descendants appear to converge. And again, two answers are possible:

(a) It is more commonly admitted that the two names in St. Matthew's list are identical with the two in St. Luke's series; for they must have lived about the same time, and the names are so rare, that it would be strange to find them occurring at the same time, in the same order, in two different genealogical series. But two levirate marriages will explain the difficulty. Melchi, David's descendant through Nathan, may have begotten Neri by a widow of the father of Jechonias; this made Neri and Jechonias uterine brothers. Jechonias may then have contracted a levirate marriage with the widow of the childless Neri, and begotten Salathiel, who was therefore the leviratical son of Neri. Salathiel's son Zorobabel begat Abiud; but he also may have been obliged to contract a levirate marriage with the widow of a childless legal relative belonging to David's descendants through Nathan, thus begetting Reza, who legally continued Nathan's lineage.

(b) A more simple solution of the difficulty is obtained, if we do not admit that the Salathiel and Zorobabel occurring in St. Matthew's genealogy are identical with those in St. Luke's. The above proofs for their identity are not cogent. If Salathiel and Zorobabel distinguished themselves at all among the descendants of Solomon, it is not astonishing that about the same time two members of Nathan's descendants should be called after them. The reader will observe that we suggest only possible answers to the difficulty; as long as such possibilities can be pointed out, our opponents have no right to deny that the genealogies which are found in the First and Third Gospel can be harmonized.

Third difficulty
How can Jesus Christ be called "son of David", if the Blessed Virgin is not a daughter of David?

(a) If by virtue of Joseph's marriage with Mary, Jesus could be called the son of Joseph, he can for the same reason be called "son of David" (St. Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels, II, i, 2).

(b) Tradition tells us that Mary too was a descendant of David. According to Numbers 36:6-12, an only daughter had to marry within her own family so as to secure the right of inheritance. After St. Justin (Adv. Tryph. 100) and St. Ignatius (Letter to the Ephesians 18), the Fathers generally agree in maintaining Mary's Davidic descent, whether they knew this from an oral tradition or inferred it from Scripture, e.g. Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8. St. John Damascene (De fid. Orth., IV, 14) states that Mary's great-grandfather, Panther, was a brother of Mathat; her grandfather, Barpanther, was Heli's cousin; and her father, Joachim, was a cousin of Joseph, Heli's levirate son. Here Mathat has been substituted for Melchi, since the text used by St. John Damascene, Julius Africanus, St. Irenæus, St. Ambrose, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus omitted the two generations separating Heli from Melchi. At any rate, tradition presents the Blessed Virgin as descending from David through Nathan.

"no one thinks its the other way around you fucking idiot..."

LOLOLOL

You're fucking deranged

The Bible speaks over you... and it shows no lineage to Mary.

And there are some who believe Matthew shows Mary's lineage; some who believe Luke shows Mary's lineage; and some who believe neither shows Mary's lineage.

And no one knows because there's no claim on record of her genealogy.

Even you said it's “implied,” because no one knows.

 

[peach174]

try me again Bitch...............




Regarding the first condition, did Mary have brothers?
We have no record of it. The Bible does not mention brothers, but it does say she had a sister.
John 19:25, "Now there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." It is thought that the sister of Mary was Salome, the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John (Matthew 20:20, Mark 15:40).
Please see "The Genealogy of the Brethren", for more.

In the Jewish culture in those days, the mother who was widowed (assuming that Joseph was dead at this time) would have gone to her father, or brother, or to her other children. Apparently, her father was dead, she had no brothers, and she had no other children, so Jesus gave her to John in John 19:27.
The words of Jesus in John 19:27, and lack of evidence of male siblings, strongly suggest that the first condition was satisfied.
The second condition is a bit more involved:
Matthew 1:1-16, "(1) The book of the origin of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the son of Abraham. (2) Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judah.....(5)...Jesse begot David the king. (6) And David the king begot Solomon of the former wife of Uriah." (Bathsheba)
This Genealogy continues and we see in verse 16, "And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, and of her was born Jesus who is called Christ."
Notice that the descendant of David is Solomon. We shall see in Luke's genealogy, a different son of David.
Matthew clearly shows that the bloodline of Joseph does go back to the tribe of Judah, and through king David. If Jesus Christ is the Son of David, then His mother, Mary has to be also of the house of David and therefore by implication, of the tribe of Judah. As we have already seen in Romans 1:3, it could have not been said that the Son was born according to the flesh of the offspring of David unless Mary were of Davidic descent. We shall delve into this further later on.

Luke 1:26-27, "Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from GOD to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary."
We have already seen that Mary is implied as being of the house of David in Luke 1:32. If she were not of the house of David, then clearly, Jesus Christ could not have been descendant of David as do so many verses attest. She married within her tribe (by implication) and so the second condition appears to be satisfied.


Luke 2:4-5, "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child."
Thus Mary, in order to be betrothed to Joseph, had to be of the same house of David as he. Consequently, both conditions for the bloodline to continue through the female line are satisfactorily met by Mary.

”try me again Bitch...............”

You’re too funny.

And by the way, I’m dismissing you again because Luke still says it was Joseph who was descended from David, not Mary. Nowhere in the Bible does it show Mary was a descendant of David.

Shit, you even posted yourself, in big bold red letters, it’s “implied.”

Dumbfuck, implications are non-factual and highly subjective.

That’s why that’s all you have to argue.

yea because you are a heathen and evolved from a monkey, a little Sunday school kid knows Mary's lineage is in Luke you stupid fuck



Is Mary’s lineage in one of the Gospels?



The genealogy in Matt. 1:1f is traced through Joseph, Jesus’ legal (though not natural) father, and it establishes His claim and right to the throne of David (v. 6). The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 is evidently that of Mary, though some believe it is also Joseph’s, by assuming that Matthan (Matt 1:15) and Matthat (Luke 3:24) were the same person and Jacob (Matt 1:16) and Eli (Luke 3:23) were brothers (one being Joseph’s father and the other his uncle). See note on Luke 3:23.

Many conservative scholars have taken this view because of the many differences in the names between the two accounts. The biggest difference is that after David, many of the names are different. It would seem best to explain the difference by viewing Luke’s genealogy as tracing the physical ancestors of Christ through Mary, while Matthew’s genealogy traces the kingly line of Christ through Joseph.

The following is the comment from The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

In addition Luke’s and Matthew’s lists from David to Shealtiel (during the time of the Exile) differ. That is because the lists trace different lines. Luke traced David’s line through Nathan, whereas Matthew traced it through Solomon. Following Shealtiel’s son, Zerubbabel, the lists once again differ until both lists unite at Joseph whom, Luke noted, was “thought” to be the father of Jesus. Little doubt exists that Matthew’s genealogy traced the kingly line of David—the royal legal line. The question is, What is the significance of Luke’s genealogy? Two main possibilities exist.

1. Luke was tracing the line of Mary. Many interpreters argue that Luke was giving the genealogy of Mary, showing that she also was in the line of David and that therefore Jesus was qualified as the Messiah not only through Joseph (since he was the oldest legal heir) but also through Mary.

2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph. This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. In this view Jacob, Joseph’s uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and then Jesus would have been brought into the royal line.

Both views have problems which are difficult to answer, not the least of which is the fact that the two genealogies meet at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and then split a second time only to come together at Joseph and Jesus. (Cf. comments on Matt. 1:12.) Regardless of one’s view it is important to note an important aspect of the theology Luke expressed in his genealogy. He related Jesus not only to Abraham but all the way back to Adam and to God. This is an indication of the universal offer of salvation, which is common to his Gospel—that Jesus came to save all people—Gentiles as well as the nation of Israel (cf. Luke 2:32).

Luke 3:23 says, “And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.” Many believe that Luke is saying that Jesus was the grandson of Eli or Heli through Mary. Eli was Mary’s father and Jesus’ grandfather. By contrast, Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck, you already posted a link saying some think Matthew lists Joseph’s lineage and Luke lists Mary’s ... while others think it’s the other way around.

The truth is nobody knows if either are Mary’s since the Bible doesn’t stay. What it does say is that both are Joseph’s. Anything you state beyond that — is made up.

try me again Bitch...............




Regarding the first condition, did Mary have brothers?
We have no record of it. The Bible does not mention brothers, but it does say she had a sister.
John 19:25, "Now there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." It is thought that the sister of Mary was Salome, the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John (Matthew 20:20, Mark 15:40).
Please see "The Genealogy of the Brethren", for more.

In the Jewish culture in those days, the mother who was widowed (assuming that Joseph was dead at this time) would have gone to her father, or brother, or to her other children. Apparently, her father was dead, she had no brothers, and she had no other children, so Jesus gave her to John in John 19:27.
The words of Jesus in John 19:27, and lack of evidence of male siblings, strongly suggest that the first condition was satisfied.
The second condition is a bit more involved:
Matthew 1:1-16, "(1) The book of the origin of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the son of Abraham. (2) Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judah.....(5)...Jesse begot David the king. (6) And David the king begot Solomon of the former wife of Uriah." (Bathsheba)
This Genealogy continues and we see in verse 16, "And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, and of her was born Jesus who is called Christ."
Notice that the descendant of David is Solomon. We shall see in Luke's genealogy, a different son of David.
Matthew clearly shows that the bloodline of Joseph does go back to the tribe of Judah, and through king David. If Jesus Christ is the Son of David, then His mother, Mary has to be also of the house of David and therefore by implication, of the tribe of Judah. As we have already seen in Romans 1:3, it could have not been said that the Son was born according to the flesh of the offspring of David unless Mary were of Davidic descent. We shall delve into this further later on.

Luke 1:26-27, "Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from GOD to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary."
We have already seen that Mary is implied as being of the house of David in Luke 1:32. If she were not of the house of David, then clearly, Jesus Christ could not have been descendant of David as do so many verses attest. She married within her tribe (by implication) and so the second condition appears to be satisfied.


Luke 2:4-5, "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child."
Thus Mary, in order to be betrothed to Joseph, had to be of the same house of David as he. Consequently, both conditions for the bloodline to continue through the female line are satisfactorily met by Mary.

”try me again Bitch...............”

You’re too funny.

And by the way, I’m dismissing you again because Luke still says it was Joseph who was descended from David, not Mary. Nowhere in the Bible does it show Mary was a descendant of David.

Shit, you even posted yourself, in big bold red letters, it’s “implied.”

Dumbfuck, implications are non-factual and highly subjective.

That’s why that’s all you have to argue.

yea because you are a heathen and evolved from a monkey, a little Sunday school kid knows Mary's lineage is in Luke you stupid fuck



Is Mary’s lineage in one of the Gospels?



The genealogy in Matt. 1:1f is traced through Joseph, Jesus’ legal (though not natural) father, and it establishes His claim and right to the throne of David (v. 6). The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 is evidently that of Mary, though some believe it is also Joseph’s, by assuming that Matthan (Matt 1:15) and Matthat (Luke 3:24) were the same person and Jacob (Matt 1:16) and Eli (Luke 3:23) were brothers (one being Joseph’s father and the other his uncle). See note on Luke 3:23.

Many conservative scholars have taken this view because of the many differences in the names between the two accounts. The biggest difference is that after David, many of the names are different. It would seem best to explain the difference by viewing Luke’s genealogy as tracing the physical ancestors of Christ through Mary, while Matthew’s genealogy traces the kingly line of Christ through Joseph.

The following is the comment from The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

In addition Luke’s and Matthew’s lists from David to Shealtiel (during the time of the Exile) differ. That is because the lists trace different lines. Luke traced David’s line through Nathan, whereas Matthew traced it through Solomon. Following Shealtiel’s son, Zerubbabel, the lists once again differ until both lists unite at Joseph whom, Luke noted, was “thought” to be the father of Jesus. Little doubt exists that Matthew’s genealogy traced the kingly line of David—the royal legal line. The question is, What is the significance of Luke’s genealogy? Two main possibilities exist.

1. Luke was tracing the line of Mary. Many interpreters argue that Luke was giving the genealogy of Mary, showing that she also was in the line of David and that therefore Jesus was qualified as the Messiah not only through Joseph (since he was the oldest legal heir) but also through Mary.

2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph. This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. In this view Jacob, Joseph’s uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and then Jesus would have been brought into the royal line.

Both views have problems which are difficult to answer, not the least of which is the fact that the two genealogies meet at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and then split a second time only to come together at Joseph and Jesus. (Cf. comments on Matt. 1:12.) Regardless of one’s view it is important to note an important aspect of the theology Luke expressed in his genealogy. He related Jesus not only to Abraham but all the way back to Adam and to God. This is an indication of the universal offer of salvation, which is common to his Gospel—that Jesus came to save all people—Gentiles as well as the nation of Israel (cf. Luke 2:32).

Luke 3:23 says, “And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.” Many believe that Luke is saying that Jesus was the grandson of Eli or Heli through Mary. Eli was Mary’s father and Jesus’ grandfather. By contrast, Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck, you already posted a link saying some think Matthew lists Joseph’s lineage and Luke lists Mary’s ... while others think it’s the other way around.

The truth is nobody knows if either are Mary’s since the Bible doesn’t stay. What it does say is that both are Joseph’s. Anything you state beyond that — is made up.

You do realize that Joseph is Jesus step dad don't you?


Joseph's marriage to Mary gives Jesus his legal right to be King.
Mary gives him the Davidic line through Nathan.

What I realize is that Jesus was a fraud, not a king, which is why he was largely rejected at the time as Mashiach and why there are flaws in the New Testament.

He was rejected because he changed and challenged some of the traditions and that upset the Pharisees.
You as well as everyone else will face him one day and find out he is no fraud.
He will become King of Israel when he returns in the not too far off distant future.

 

[Faun]

”try me again Bitch...............”

You’re too funny.

And by the way, I’m dismissing you again because Luke still says it was Joseph who was descended from David, not Mary. Nowhere in the Bible does it show Mary was a descendant of David.

Shit, you even posted yourself, in big bold red letters, it’s “implied.”

Dumbfuck, implications are non-factual and highly subjective.

That’s why that’s all you have to argue.

yea because you are a heathen and evolved from a monkey, a little Sunday school kid knows Mary's lineage is in Luke you stupid fuck



Is Mary’s lineage in one of the Gospels?



The genealogy in Matt. 1:1f is traced through Joseph, Jesus’ legal (though not natural) father, and it establishes His claim and right to the throne of David (v. 6). The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 is evidently that of Mary, though some believe it is also Joseph’s, by assuming that Matthan (Matt 1:15) and Matthat (Luke 3:24) were the same person and Jacob (Matt 1:16) and Eli (Luke 3:23) were brothers (one being Joseph’s father and the other his uncle). See note on Luke 3:23.

Many conservative scholars have taken this view because of the many differences in the names between the two accounts. The biggest difference is that after David, many of the names are different. It would seem best to explain the difference by viewing Luke’s genealogy as tracing the physical ancestors of Christ through Mary, while Matthew’s genealogy traces the kingly line of Christ through Joseph.

The following is the comment from The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

In addition Luke’s and Matthew’s lists from David to Shealtiel (during the time of the Exile) differ. That is because the lists trace different lines. Luke traced David’s line through Nathan, whereas Matthew traced it through Solomon. Following Shealtiel’s son, Zerubbabel, the lists once again differ until both lists unite at Joseph whom, Luke noted, was “thought” to be the father of Jesus. Little doubt exists that Matthew’s genealogy traced the kingly line of David—the royal legal line. The question is, What is the significance of Luke’s genealogy? Two main possibilities exist.

1. Luke was tracing the line of Mary. Many interpreters argue that Luke was giving the genealogy of Mary, showing that she also was in the line of David and that therefore Jesus was qualified as the Messiah not only through Joseph (since he was the oldest legal heir) but also through Mary.

2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph. This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. In this view Jacob, Joseph’s uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and then Jesus would have been brought into the royal line.

Both views have problems which are difficult to answer, not the least of which is the fact that the two genealogies meet at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and then split a second time only to come together at Joseph and Jesus. (Cf. comments on Matt. 1:12.) Regardless of one’s view it is important to note an important aspect of the theology Luke expressed in his genealogy. He related Jesus not only to Abraham but all the way back to Adam and to God. This is an indication of the universal offer of salvation, which is common to his Gospel—that Jesus came to save all people—Gentiles as well as the nation of Israel (cf. Luke 2:32).

Luke 3:23 says, “And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.” Many believe that Luke is saying that Jesus was the grandson of Eli or Heli through Mary. Eli was Mary’s father and Jesus’ grandfather. By contrast, Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck, you already posted a link saying some think Matthew lists Joseph’s lineage and Luke lists Mary’s ... while others think it’s the other way around.

The truth is nobody knows if either are Mary’s since the Bible doesn’t stay. What it does say is that both are Joseph’s. Anything you state beyond that — is made up.

”try me again Bitch...............”

You’re too funny.

And by the way, I’m dismissing you again because Luke still says it was Joseph who was descended from David, not Mary. Nowhere in the Bible does it show Mary was a descendant of David.

Shit, you even posted yourself, in big bold red letters, it’s “implied.”

Dumbfuck, implications are non-factual and highly subjective.

That’s why that’s all you have to argue.

yea because you are a heathen and evolved from a monkey, a little Sunday school kid knows Mary's lineage is in Luke you stupid fuck



Is Mary’s lineage in one of the Gospels?



The genealogy in Matt. 1:1f is traced through Joseph, Jesus’ legal (though not natural) father, and it establishes His claim and right to the throne of David (v. 6). The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 is evidently that of Mary, though some believe it is also Joseph’s, by assuming that Matthan (Matt 1:15) and Matthat (Luke 3:24) were the same person and Jacob (Matt 1:16) and Eli (Luke 3:23) were brothers (one being Joseph’s father and the other his uncle). See note on Luke 3:23.

Many conservative scholars have taken this view because of the many differences in the names between the two accounts. The biggest difference is that after David, many of the names are different. It would seem best to explain the difference by viewing Luke’s genealogy as tracing the physical ancestors of Christ through Mary, while Matthew’s genealogy traces the kingly line of Christ through Joseph.

The following is the comment from The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

In addition Luke’s and Matthew’s lists from David to Shealtiel (during the time of the Exile) differ. That is because the lists trace different lines. Luke traced David’s line through Nathan, whereas Matthew traced it through Solomon. Following Shealtiel’s son, Zerubbabel, the lists once again differ until both lists unite at Joseph whom, Luke noted, was “thought” to be the father of Jesus. Little doubt exists that Matthew’s genealogy traced the kingly line of David—the royal legal line. The question is, What is the significance of Luke’s genealogy? Two main possibilities exist.

1. Luke was tracing the line of Mary. Many interpreters argue that Luke was giving the genealogy of Mary, showing that she also was in the line of David and that therefore Jesus was qualified as the Messiah not only through Joseph (since he was the oldest legal heir) but also through Mary.

2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph. This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. In this view Jacob, Joseph’s uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and then Jesus would have been brought into the royal line.

Both views have problems which are difficult to answer, not the least of which is the fact that the two genealogies meet at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and then split a second time only to come together at Joseph and Jesus. (Cf. comments on Matt. 1:12.) Regardless of one’s view it is important to note an important aspect of the theology Luke expressed in his genealogy. He related Jesus not only to Abraham but all the way back to Adam and to God. This is an indication of the universal offer of salvation, which is common to his Gospel—that Jesus came to save all people—Gentiles as well as the nation of Israel (cf. Luke 2:32).

Luke 3:23 says, “And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.” Many believe that Luke is saying that Jesus was the grandson of Eli or Heli through Mary. Eli was Mary’s father and Jesus’ grandfather. By contrast, Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck, you already posted a link saying some think Matthew lists Joseph’s lineage and Luke lists Mary’s ... while others think it’s the other way around.

The truth is nobody knows if either are Mary’s since the Bible doesn’t stay. What it does say is that both are Joseph’s. Anything you state beyond that — is made up.

You do realize that Joseph is Jesus step dad don't you?


Joseph's marriage to Mary gives Jesus his legal right to be King.
Mary gives him the Davidic line through Nathan.

What I realize is that Jesus was a fraud, not a king, which is why he was largely rejected at the time as Mashiach and why there are flaws in the New Testament.

He was rejected because he changed and challenged some of the traditions and that upset the Pharisees.
You as well as everyone else will face him one day and find out he is no fraud.
He will become King of Israel when he returns in the not too far off distant future.

Suuure, uh-huh.

Well? You have no comment on Matthew listing only 17 generations where 1 Chronicles lists 21?

 

[peach174]

yea because you are a heathen and evolved from a monkey, a little Sunday school kid knows Mary's lineage is in Luke you stupid fuck



Is Mary’s lineage in one of the Gospels?



The genealogy in Matt. 1:1f is traced through Joseph, Jesus’ legal (though not natural) father, and it establishes His claim and right to the throne of David (v. 6). The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 is evidently that of Mary, though some believe it is also Joseph’s, by assuming that Matthan (Matt 1:15) and Matthat (Luke 3:24) were the same person and Jacob (Matt 1:16) and Eli (Luke 3:23) were brothers (one being Joseph’s father and the other his uncle). See note on Luke 3:23.

Many conservative scholars have taken this view because of the many differences in the names between the two accounts. The biggest difference is that after David, many of the names are different. It would seem best to explain the difference by viewing Luke’s genealogy as tracing the physical ancestors of Christ through Mary, while Matthew’s genealogy traces the kingly line of Christ through Joseph.

The following is the comment from The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

In addition Luke’s and Matthew’s lists from David to Shealtiel (during the time of the Exile) differ. That is because the lists trace different lines. Luke traced David’s line through Nathan, whereas Matthew traced it through Solomon. Following Shealtiel’s son, Zerubbabel, the lists once again differ until both lists unite at Joseph whom, Luke noted, was “thought” to be the father of Jesus. Little doubt exists that Matthew’s genealogy traced the kingly line of David—the royal legal line. The question is, What is the significance of Luke’s genealogy? Two main possibilities exist.

1. Luke was tracing the line of Mary. Many interpreters argue that Luke was giving the genealogy of Mary, showing that she also was in the line of David and that therefore Jesus was qualified as the Messiah not only through Joseph (since he was the oldest legal heir) but also through Mary.

2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph. This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. In this view Jacob, Joseph’s uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and then Jesus would have been brought into the royal line.

Both views have problems which are difficult to answer, not the least of which is the fact that the two genealogies meet at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and then split a second time only to come together at Joseph and Jesus. (Cf. comments on Matt. 1:12.) Regardless of one’s view it is important to note an important aspect of the theology Luke expressed in his genealogy. He related Jesus not only to Abraham but all the way back to Adam and to God. This is an indication of the universal offer of salvation, which is common to his Gospel—that Jesus came to save all people—Gentiles as well as the nation of Israel (cf. Luke 2:32).

Luke 3:23 says, “And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.” Many believe that Luke is saying that Jesus was the grandson of Eli or Heli through Mary. Eli was Mary’s father and Jesus’ grandfather. By contrast, Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck, you already posted a link saying some think Matthew lists Joseph’s lineage and Luke lists Mary’s ... while others think it’s the other way around.

The truth is nobody knows if either are Mary’s since the Bible doesn’t stay. What it does say is that both are Joseph’s. Anything you state beyond that — is made up.

yea because you are a heathen and evolved from a monkey, a little Sunday school kid knows Mary's lineage is in Luke you stupid fuck



Is Mary’s lineage in one of the Gospels?



The genealogy in Matt. 1:1f is traced through Joseph, Jesus’ legal (though not natural) father, and it establishes His claim and right to the throne of David (v. 6). The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 is evidently that of Mary, though some believe it is also Joseph’s, by assuming that Matthan (Matt 1:15) and Matthat (Luke 3:24) were the same person and Jacob (Matt 1:16) and Eli (Luke 3:23) were brothers (one being Joseph’s father and the other his uncle). See note on Luke 3:23.

Many conservative scholars have taken this view because of the many differences in the names between the two accounts. The biggest difference is that after David, many of the names are different. It would seem best to explain the difference by viewing Luke’s genealogy as tracing the physical ancestors of Christ through Mary, while Matthew’s genealogy traces the kingly line of Christ through Joseph.

The following is the comment from The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

In addition Luke’s and Matthew’s lists from David to Shealtiel (during the time of the Exile) differ. That is because the lists trace different lines. Luke traced David’s line through Nathan, whereas Matthew traced it through Solomon. Following Shealtiel’s son, Zerubbabel, the lists once again differ until both lists unite at Joseph whom, Luke noted, was “thought” to be the father of Jesus. Little doubt exists that Matthew’s genealogy traced the kingly line of David—the royal legal line. The question is, What is the significance of Luke’s genealogy? Two main possibilities exist.

1. Luke was tracing the line of Mary. Many interpreters argue that Luke was giving the genealogy of Mary, showing that she also was in the line of David and that therefore Jesus was qualified as the Messiah not only through Joseph (since he was the oldest legal heir) but also through Mary.

2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph. This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. In this view Jacob, Joseph’s uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and then Jesus would have been brought into the royal line.

Both views have problems which are difficult to answer, not the least of which is the fact that the two genealogies meet at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and then split a second time only to come together at Joseph and Jesus. (Cf. comments on Matt. 1:12.) Regardless of one’s view it is important to note an important aspect of the theology Luke expressed in his genealogy. He related Jesus not only to Abraham but all the way back to Adam and to God. This is an indication of the universal offer of salvation, which is common to his Gospel—that Jesus came to save all people—Gentiles as well as the nation of Israel (cf. Luke 2:32).

Luke 3:23 says, “And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.” Many believe that Luke is saying that Jesus was the grandson of Eli or Heli through Mary. Eli was Mary’s father and Jesus’ grandfather. By contrast, Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck, you already posted a link saying some think Matthew lists Joseph’s lineage and Luke lists Mary’s ... while others think it’s the other way around.

The truth is nobody knows if either are Mary’s since the Bible doesn’t stay. What it does say is that both are Joseph’s. Anything you state beyond that — is made up.

You do realize that Joseph is Jesus step dad don't you?


Joseph's marriage to Mary gives Jesus his legal right to be King.
Mary gives him the Davidic line through Nathan.

What I realize is that Jesus was a fraud, not a king, which is why he was largely rejected at the time as Mashiach and why there are flaws in the New Testament.

He was rejected because he changed and challenged some of the traditions and that upset the Pharisees.
You as well as everyone else will face him one day and find out he is no fraud.
He will become King of Israel when he returns in the not too far off distant future.

Suuure, uh-huh.

Well? You have no comment on Matthew listing only 17 generations where 1 Chronicles lists 21?

There are a lot more listed than 17 and 21 in both Matthew and Chronicles, so I don't know where you are getting those numbers.
Chronicles goes all the way back to Adam.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

You dumbfuck, you already posted a link saying some think Matthew lists Joseph’s lineage and Luke lists Mary’s ... while others think it’s the other way around.

The truth is nobody knows if either are Mary’s since the Bible doesn’t stay. What it does say is that both are Joseph’s. Anything you state beyond that — is made up.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck, you already posted a link saying some think Matthew lists Joseph’s lineage and Luke lists Mary’s ... while others think it’s the other way around.

The truth is nobody knows if either are Mary’s since the Bible doesn’t stay. What it does say is that both are Joseph’s. Anything you state beyond that — is made up.

You do realize that Joseph is Jesus step dad don't you?


Joseph's marriage to Mary gives Jesus his legal right to be King.
Mary gives him the Davidic line through Nathan.

What I realize is that Jesus was a fraud, not a king, which is why he was largely rejected at the time as Mashiach and why there are flaws in the New Testament.

He was rejected because he changed and challenged some of the traditions and that upset the Pharisees.
You as well as everyone else will face him one day and find out he is no fraud.
He will become King of Israel when he returns in the not too far off distant future.

Suuure, uh-huh.

Well? You have no comment on Matthew listing only 17 generations where 1 Chronicles lists 21?

There are a lot more listed than 17 and 21 in both Matthew and Chronicles, so I don't know where you are getting those numbers.
Chronicles goes all the way back to Adam.

I showed you the two lists. You ignore it because you fear the truth.

And why do you keep mentioning how Chronicles goes back to Adam when I showed you I was talking only about the generations from David to Zerubbabel? Are you capable of looking at 1 Chronicles 3 which starts with King David? Or is that above your limited abilities?

 

[peach174]

You do realize that Joseph is Jesus step dad don't you?


Joseph's marriage to Mary gives Jesus his legal right to be King.
Mary gives him the Davidic line through Nathan.

What I realize is that Jesus was a fraud, not a king, which is why he was largely rejected at the time as Mashiach and why there are flaws in the New Testament.

He was rejected because he changed and challenged some of the traditions and that upset the Pharisees.
You as well as everyone else will face him one day and find out he is no fraud.
He will become King of Israel when he returns in the not too far off distant future.

Suuure, uh-huh.

Well? You have no comment on Matthew listing only 17 generations where 1 Chronicles lists 21?

There are a lot more listed than 17 and 21 in both Matthew and Chronicles, so I don't know where you are getting those numbers.
Chronicles goes all the way back to Adam.

I showed you the two lists. You ignore it because you fear the truth.

And why do you keep mentioning how Chronicles goes back to Adam when I showed you I was talking only about the generations from David to Zerubbabel? Are you capable of looking at 1 Chronicles 3 which starts with King David? Or is that above your limited abilities?

You keep going back to Joseph's genealogy and he was not the father of Jesus.
Look to Mary from her bloodline.
Joseph marriage to Mary gives Jesus the legal right to be king .
Mary gives him the bloodline from Nathan, through King David, who was his 3rd son.

 

[MedfordMan]

Faun,

In the verse quoted you've answered your own question as those who were not circumcised were "cut off from their people".

Actually, it states their “soul” is what is cut off.

Faun,

In the verse quoted you've answered your own question as those who were not circumcised were "cut off from their people".

Actually, it states their “soul” is what is cut off.

Since you are a literalist (at least when it suits you), does it say that their souls are cut off from God?

 

[MedfordMan]

You do realize that Joseph is Jesus step dad don't you?


Joseph's marriage to Mary gives Jesus his legal right to be King.
Mary gives him the Davidic line through Nathan.

What I realize is that Jesus was a fraud, not a king, which is why he was largely rejected at the time as Mashiach and why there are flaws in the New Testament.

He was rejected because he changed and challenged some of the traditions and that upset the Pharisees.
You as well as everyone else will face him one day and find out he is no fraud.
He will become King of Israel when he returns in the not too far off distant future.

Suuure, uh-huh.

Well? You have no comment on Matthew listing only 17 generations where 1 Chronicles lists 21?

There are a lot more listed than 17 and 21 in both Matthew and Chronicles, so I don't know where you are getting those numbers.
Chronicles goes all the way back to Adam.

I showed you the two lists. You ignore it because you fear the truth.

And why do you keep mentioning how Chronicles goes back to Adam when I showed you I was talking only about the generations from David to Zerubbabel? Are you capable of looking at 1 Chronicles 3 which starts with King David? Or is that above your limited abilities?

So, let me get this straight.

Faun rejects Mary's genealogy because her name does not appear on the list.

To drive home his point he puts up two lists none of which contain any woman's names.

Might that be a key to solving the mystery?

 

[MedfordMan]

Luke 17:34-35, KJV

You read that as an endorsement of homosexuality? That's NOT what it says

That's your interpretation. I think it is obvious. It says being gay doesn't matter. Two gays could be doing the exact same thing in bed and one will go (because he believes the Jesus myth) and one won't (because he doesn't).

So if you guys say the bible says being a homosexual is bad, I can show you this verse that contradicts that.

And who cares really because it was ancient goat herders that wrote the bible. Who cares what they wrote?

French Writer Alleges Vatican Is One Of The World’s Largest Gay Communities | HuffPost

This verse has nothing to do with homosexuality and never will no matter how many times you try to interject your own personal interpretation of it.

 

[Faun]

Faun,

In the verse quoted you've answered your own question as those who were not circumcised were "cut off from their people".

Actually, it states their “soul” is what is cut off.

Faun,

In the verse quoted you've answered your own question as those who were not circumcised were "cut off from their people".

Actually, it states their “soul” is what is cut off.

Since you are a literalist (at least when it suits you), does it say that their souls are cut off from God?

Are you still struggling with the quote I plucked from the Bible?