Matthew says there were forty-one generations from Abraham to Jesus while Luke says there were fifty-six?

Question

If Jesus is born of a virgin (some try to say virgin = young woman, but here it is literal since he was supposed to be conceived by the holy spirit and not any human) as the basic Christian belief claims, then he is not the biological son of Joseph, and thus he is not descended from David in fulfillment of the prophecy for Messiahship. So either he was born of virgin and not the Messiah or he was an illegitimate child with no miracle to his birth but was the Messiah. And then he was not son of God... which breaks down the trinity, right?

Answer 1

There's a lot of logical inconsistencies in the bible. You kinda have to take it with a grain of salt and use it more as a guide on how to live a good and fulfilling life rather than as an historical document.

Answer 2

The Trinity is *NOT* a bible teaching.

That said, Matthew's genealogy goes through Jesus' birth mother Mary while Luke's genealogy goes through Jesus' adoptive father Joseph. It would be a shocking coincidence if the two genealogies actually did happen to have the same number of generations.

This argument about Jesus' so-called "illegitimate birth" is actually asked fairly regularly.

Since Almighty God was and is the only significant standard for both marriage and legitimacy, the opinion of the Almighty is the only one that matters.

(Luke 3:23-38) Jesus himself, when he commenced his work, was about thirty years old, being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of He´li,... son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God.

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/library/w/2003/12/15/article_01.htm

Answer 3

Wrong. Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary's genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38.

Answer 4

The best illustration of this is the two genealogies of Jesus recorded in Scripture – one in Matthew 1 and the other in Luke 3. It is readily apparent that these two genealogies are very different from each other. Luke, for instance, allows many more generations than does Matthew; but, then, Luke's list goes from Adam to Jesus whereas Matthew's goes from Abraham to Jesus; but even in the time period where the two genealogies overlap, Luke's is much longer – some 56 names compared to Matthew's 41. Also, the two lists are in reverse order: Luke's starts with Jesus whereas Matthew's ends with Jesus. And furthermore, Matthew's list traces Jesus' ancestry through David's son Solomon whereas Luke's traces Jesus' ancestry through David's son Nathan.

As you can see they are both right one took it farther than the other

Answer 5

Will you marry me?? I'm not kidding! You are a genius! We need to talk seriously! Because you are just like me! If you ever wanna talk more about things just email me...anyways onto ur question....Some don't just try to say Virgin = young woman...The original Aramaic translation of the New testament clearly states that Jesus was born of a young woman not of a virgin...but think about it this way....The founders of the early church would have no basis for their "messiah" if they didn't match up the prophecies...so what did they do...they changed things around to fit what they wanted...Most biblical scholars will agree...I just don't know why more people can't realize this.

Answer 6

He was not officially deified until the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. Prior to that, Jesus was supposed to have been the son of god by some Christians, god personified by others, or just a saint by others. There was no real standard for Jesus prior to that.

Part of the problem is that there is no real historical record of Jesus or any of his actions. The gospels of the Bible were written long after Jesus supposedly lived, and were edited and rewritten other times. Additionally, the Council of Nicaea threw out other gospels that could have also been more accurate.

The result is that the Christian bible has many contradictions in it, one that you found.

Answer 7

Wrong. Better look at the genealogy of Mary before you jump to any conclusions. Besides, who cares if it were ten or a hundred generations to Jesus from Abraham. How is that going to affect your eternal life?

Answer 8

And people often forget the role of Roman mercenaries far from home .. it is to bad Mother Mary and Joseph couldn't have performed a paternity test ...

Answer 9

everything you said is my feeling, if its not one then its the other, but honestly, whats that mean for me, a man in 2006, that some dead guy was a rightful heir to the throne of king david?

Answer 10

wow!Why do the genealogies of Jesus Christ as given by Matthew and by Luke differ?

The difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.

Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary. Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: “This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit—1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: ‘Genus matris non vocatur genus [“The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant”]’ (‘Baba bathra,’ 110, a).”—Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.

Actually each genealogy (Matthew’s table and Luke’s) shows descent from David, through Solomon and through Nathan. (Mt 1:6; Lu 3:31) In examining the lists of Matthew and Luke, we find that after diverging at Solomon and Nathan, they come together again in two persons, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. This can be explained in the following way: Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah; perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri he became Neri’s son-in-law, thus being called the “son of Neri.” It is possible as well that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his “son” for that reason also. Zerubbabel, who was likely the actual son of Pedaiah, was legally reckoned as the son of Shealtiel, as stated earlier.—Compare Mt 1:12; Lu 3:27; 1Ch 3:17-19.

Then the accounts indicate that Zerubbabel had two sons, Rhesa and Abiud, the lines diverging again at this point. (These could have been, not actual sons, but descendants, or one, at least, could have been a son-in-law. Compare 1Ch 3:19.) (Lu 3:27; Mt 1:13) Both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies of Jesus vary here from that found in 1 Chronicles chapter 3. This may be because a number of names were purposely left out by Matthew and possibly also by Luke. But the fact should be kept in mind that such differences in the genealogical lists of Matthew and Luke are very likely those already present in the genealogical registers then in use and fully accepted by the Jews and were not changes made by Matthew and Luke.

We may conclude, therefore, that the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths, namely, (1) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David’s line, and (2) that Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Lu 1:32, 35; Ro 1:1-4) If there was any accusation made by hostile Jews that Jesus’ birth was illegitimate, the fact that Joseph, aware of the circumstances, married Mary and gave her the protection of his good name and royal lineage refutes such slander.