Did Jesus have A Grandfather?

Question

I mean it must be confusing with conflicting stories and all....

The author of Matthew says his name is “Jacob” (Matthew 1:16).

The author of Luke however disagrees. He says Joseph’s father was “Heli” (Luke 3:23).

As a matter of fact, although there’s some occassional agreement, there’s mostly disagreement between the two Gospels about Jesus’ genealogy going all the way back to Abraham.

(Luke 3:23 NRSV) Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of *Joseph* son of Heli, …

Nothing about Mary in there at all and no, Joseph was not the “son-in-law” of Heli, and Mary’s ancestry doesn’t coincidently intertwine with Joseph’s going all the way back to Abraham, occasionally matching some people along the way and no, back in those days they didn’t give a flying flip who the mother’s ancestry was.

The author of Luke simply came up with or recorded a genealogy that contradicted the one in the Gospel of Matthew.

And the author of Luke also contradicts another author in the Bible. The author of Matthew only traces Jesus back to Abraham, but the author of Luke traces Jesus all the way back to Adam.

Unfortunately his genealogy disagrees with an author of Genesis on the way back to Adam. Luke’s genealogy inserts an extra generation (Cainan):

so who was it really?

Answer 1

I have a Portuguese friend. His name is Jesus da Silva. He has a grandfather and his name is Jude.

Answer 2

Differences between the genealogies of Matthew and Luke are because of the fact that Matthew traced the ancestry of Joseph, while Luke traced the that of Mary.

So regarding Joseph's fathers... The Jerusalem Talmud shows that Joseph was the son-IN-LAW of Heli. Joseph's father was Jacob. It was customary to refer to a son-in-law as a son in the first century. Luke's statement was culturally correct.

You see, the original readers of Luke's works were Greek Christians. While Matthew wrote to the Jews, Luke wrote to the Greeks. Matthew's genealogy emphasized Jesus' claim to the throne of David. Since Luke's readers were less concerned about the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, his genealogy focused on Jesus' descent from God. It placed no emphasis on Jesus being the descendant of King David.

Matthew abridged the genealogy by omitting some names that appear in earlier records. Some speculate that the abridged arrangement was intended to aid in memorization. (Genealogical abridgement has biblical precedent.)

It is important to note that Matthew did not say there was a total of 42 generations (i.e. 14 multiplied by 3). He respectively indicated that there were 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the Babylonian Captivity, and 14 from the release to Christ. David's name was repeated because he was alive when the first division ended, and when the second division began.

Answer 3

This was the genealogy of Mary only. Luke 3:24. This the Genealogy of Mary. Matthat was Mary's grandfather. Matthew 1:"15And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob. Jacob was Jesus' grandfather, Mary's father."

Answer 4

the version in almost each and every of the names in Luke’s kinfolk tree of Jesus in comparison with Matthew’s is straight away resolved interior the indisputable fact that Luke traced the line via David’s son Nathan, extremely of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt a million:6, 7) Luke needless to say follows the ancestry of Mary, to that end showing Jesus’ organic descent from David, on a similar time as Matthew shows Jesus’ criminal precise to the throne of David via descent from Solomon via Joseph, who replaced into legally Jesus’ father. the two Matthew and Luke represent that Joseph replaced into no longer Jesus’ actual father yet in basic terms his adoptive father, giving him criminal precise. That the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse jointly the two truths, particularly, (a million) that Jesus replaced into actual the Son of God and the organic inheritor to the dominion via surprising beginning interior the direction of the virgin female Mary, of David’s line, and (2) that Jesus replaced into additionally the criminal inheritor interior the male line of descent from David and Solomon via his adoptive father Joseph. (Lu a million:32, 35; Ro a million:a million-4) If there replaced into any accusation made via opposed Jews that Jesus’ beginning replaced into illegitimate, the indisputable fact that Joseph, conscious of the situations, married Mary and gave her the protection of his good call and royal lineage refutes such slander.

Answer 5

Keep in mind, the bible is a big scam. They didn't put a lot of effort into proffing it for inconsistencies.

Answer 6

Does it really matter since he allegedly had no biological father. Your lineage is traced through your biological father.

Answer 7

Jesus is the son of God

Answer 8

Are you saying that god has a father?

Answer 9

.Perhaps one of his name was an pseudonym