Who is the father of Joseph?

Question

So which is the correct version of this fable?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

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

1 of the 1,000's of self-contradictions in the bible...

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#introduction

Answer 1

I always thought it was Mary

Answer 2

It is not a fable and both are correct but different genealogies Some suggest that Mathew gives a list of those standing in the legal line of descent from David, those who were hairs to the throne,generation by generation. Luke gives the actual descendants of David who were ancestors in Joesph's particular branch of the Davidic line. Get a study Bible they have foot notes that can explain things clear.

I hope this helps also if you have questions pray and ask God He will lead you to the answers you are seeking.

Answer 3

Why are you taking things out of context then commenting on contradictions?

Luke 3:23 Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry. Jesus was known as the son of Joseph. Joseph was the son of Heli. (((Did you notice the word...known?)))



You must read all of it silly...

Grace to you and God Bless

Answer 4

This is no contradiction, they are not the same Joseph for one and on this topic there are no contradictions in the bible, there are only the pre Jesus days of the Old Testiment and the Jesus days( today included) of the New Testiment.

Answer 5

Joseph was the son of Jacob, and the son-in-law of Heli. Just like my husband and I call our son-in-law our son. Mary was the daughter of Heli

Answer 6

One name is Hebrew. One name is Greek (Heli). It's like that through the whole Bible. Two names for each person, because the Bible was written with a mixture of Greek and Hebrew.
SO MUCH FOR YOUR CONTRADICTION.!

Much of your so-called "contradictions" comes out of your ignorance of Bible Times , Culture and Customs. The rest is just because your lack of understanding or rejection of Truth, anyway.

Answer 7

You know. The people who wrote the Bible kind of just ignored Joseph. I am sure that Jesus didn't. But since he didn't have a great role( although I'm sure he did) The early tellers of the stories left him out. Isn't it amazing?? What else did they think was not important????

Answer 8

One geneology, more than likely Matthew, follows Joseph's line and Luke follows the other, in this case, Mary.

Answer 9

If you are speaking about Joseph (the coat of many colors, counselor to Pharaoh) his father is Jacob.(Rachel)
From the Old Testament...


The other Joseph is someone entirely different. (New Testament born MANY years later)

Answer 10

Not too hard to explain...After both Matthew and Luke name David, the two genealogies do not agree in the names of descendants, and Luke’s genealogy has fifteen more names than Matthew’s does. Why?

Plainly they are NOT the same genealogies, although both finally include Joseph the husband of Mary. But Matthew’s genealogy begins at the opposite end from that of Luke. Luke begins with Jesus and runs back to Abraham and on back to Adam. Matthew begins with Abraham and runs down to Jesus, and he leaves out the names of a number of men in between. Matthew therefore concerns himself with tracing the genealogy man by man, or male by male, and he does not include women indirectly. He does not wish them to be understood as really necessary but unmentioned links in the genealogy. This is shown by the fact that, where he does have a woman in mind, he directly names the woman, saying: “Judah became father to Perez and to Zerah by Tamar,” and, “Salmon became father to Boaz by Rahab,” and, “Boaz became father to Obed by Ruth.” Neither Tamar, Rahab nor Ruth were descendants of Abraham. Hence it had to be through their husbands that the line of descent was carried along unbroken from Abraham.

Unlike Matthew, Luke mentions no women directly. This suggests that women may be understood in the line of descent, in which case their husbands would be merely the sons-in-law and not the direct sons of the previous man in the line of descent. Jewish genealogies were always traced through the males in the marriage union. Hence in such cases the son-in-law would be called the son of his father-in-law. That something unmentioned is to be understood is indicated at the very start of Luke’s genealogy, for it begins by saying: “Jesus himself . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph.” Joseph was merely the foster or adoptive father of Jesus, whereas God was the Father of Jesus and Mary his earthly mother. Matthew says regarding Joseph, “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary.” (Matt. 1:16) But Luke 3:23 says that Joseph was “the son of Heli.” Hence it must be understood that Joseph, the son of Jacob, was merely the son-in-law of Heli, because his wife Mary was the daughter of Heli.

By being the son of Mary Jesus was the direct natural descendant of David. By being the foster or adoptive son of Joseph Jesus was the legal descendant and heir of David. It was not enough for Jesus to be a legal heir of King David and to be merely adopted into the line of descent from David. Jesus had to be a direct, flesh-and-blood descendant of David. Hence it was necessary for the descent of Jesus’ natural mother Mary to be direct from David. Luke proves this point about Mary and in that way shows that Jesus was a direct descendant of David and thus had a natural claim upon David’s throne. Matthew’s genealogy shows that Jesus had only a legal claim to it.

So, simply said, one is Joseph's lineage, the other is the lineage of Mary, both proving that Jeus was a decendant of King David,

Answer 11

lol the bible is soooo incorrect, but the answer to that question will be found in the quran, and dont worry it doesnt give you 2 completely different answers lol.