On the topic of Mary and that angel...?

Question

Why does the book of Matthew trace the geneolgy of Jesus through *Joseph* back to David? If what the angel said was true, Joseph is not related to Jesus and therefore his geneolgy is irrelevent.

What do you mean, what is the point of the question? If Joseph was not biologically related to Jesus, why is his geneology listed by Matthew? How can you trace a person's geneology through an adoptive parent?

Answer 1

Matthew was interested in convincing the Jews that Jesus was Who He said He was and could do what He promised...and the Jews were obsessed with genealogy. Joseph's lineage would have been very important to them, as would Mary's.
They are still, to this day, looking for "the son of David" to arise and defeat all the enemies of Israel, and they expect this prodigy to be able to prove his lineage, as well.
(I'm not too clear on how they expect this to happen, since the Temple and all it contained was destroyed in 70AD...shockingly, just as Jesus had warned them would happen. Amazing, huh?)

Answer 2

Chicky,
Oh the typing I have to do to show you all the reasons! I will not do that, but I will give you a summary, because I didn't know. It's come up before, but I had to read quite a bit both software and books to get a clue!

Basically, Joseph's lineage is placed because he was Jesus's 'legal' father. To suggest that Jesus was Joseph's son wouldn't be what Matthew believed either. Reading the rest of the Gospel according to Matthew would reveal that easily.

But your question is a good one, and it goes back deep into the Old Testament, not just the genealogy, but also the occurances therein, such as Jeremiah's treatment of Jeconiah, who Jeremiah said, "Record this man as if childless." He was a father of son's that did not occupy the throne of David, so Luke provided the lineage through Nathan, to Mary.
So Matthews lineage shows the LEGAL presentation of Jesus's. lineage. Having been a step son of Joseph.

Answer 3

Matthew traces Jesus' genealogy through Joseph because Jesus' genealogies were still true, as Jesus was 'adopted' by Joseph. It is necessary, because it is a fulfillment of Messianic prophecy which says that the Messiah would be a descendent of King David.

Answer 4

It's important that he be linked to David's Kingly line.In Luke it traces Mary's line and adds Joseph at the end as the head of the house.Her line goes thru David's son Nathan and Joseph's thru Solomon.Here's the rub,Solomon's line was cursed at his descendant Jeconiah from ever being able to take the throne.That's why Joseph can't be his pop or his rights to the throne are void.

Answer 5

You need to look at the entirety of the book to understand. I suggest reading up on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Matthew was almost certainly an SJ and SJ's are deeply concerned with where you come from, that you are of good stock. It was a prediliction of the author that is coming through.

Answer 6

It's for the comfort of the humans obsessed with blood lines, heraldry - the rules human kings live by.
The masses could grasp this concept.
Jesus is also a human king of us.

Answer 7

becouse joseph was his dad.. he had the angels come to him also and tell him what was going to happen.. Joseph still raised him..
althought i really dont get whats the point of your question!

Answer 8

Jesus was the child of Mary and the holy spirit. she was not just a surrogate. so, he WAS the descendent of David

Answer 9

nice catch!--it's classic misdirection--if they trace mary's line, she goes back to saint anne, who was also a virgin when she gave birth to mary--virgin births ran in that family I guess.....

Answer 10

Hey! You seem to have missed out on the fact the the Bible is a trick and so were the angel and joseph.

Your angel is none but Zeus.

Jesus made his first appearance on the scene at the crucifixion of two thieves who bore the same identity on their crosses in Pilate's Hoax of the Crucifixion. They were both named Jesus in Pilate's beautiful Hoax and his setting Christ free.

The Gospels were written after and about the Crucifixion and inserted the name Jesus at the start to complete the Hoax.

The Gospels According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, in that "order" (Luke 1:1) given to us as the Synoptic Gospels being, they say, of the same source. When dated, Luke was the last Gospel to be written; yet it is presented and accepted as the third in the line of the four Gospels. Luke himself admits to having had access to everything that had been written or witnessed about the topic, (Luke 1:2,3) which must have included that which had been written by John, and by Matthew and Mark, for John makes the corresponding claim in his closing words that “we wrote these things and we know that his testimony is true, and there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they were written every one” (John 21:24, 25).

Matthew begins with the Annunciation and the Conception and Birth, and John brings down the curtain like none has done, with his tongue-in-cheek revelation that the crucified “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” after which he introduces this Jesus of the one-man resurrection showing off his open wounds after eight days (John 20:26,27), and eating fish and bread (John 21:15).

John is just as witty as Luke, but not as careful, for Luke and Mark and Matthew have held back from associating the Jesus of the crucifixion with the Christ, the man and prophet of the ninth chapter of John (John 9:11 & 17), or with being this Son of God.

Matthew (Matthew 27:32-37), Mark (Mark 15:21-26), and Luke (Luke 23:26-38) indicate to us that there were three crosses on the way to Golgotha, none of which Christ carried. John alone gives evidence that the cross that was borne by Jesus carried the inscription, “JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS” (John 19:16-22) and John alone asks us to believe that Jesus of the crucifixion was the Christ (John 20:31).

Such is Luke’s “order” (Luke 1:1) of deception in his preparation of the hoax of the crucifixion that even the Most Excellent Theophilus would have had to be extremely optimistic to imagine that one Pope John Paul ii of the 21st. Century, CE, would have been able to keep this hoax alive after denying the hoax of the Shroud of Turin in September 0f 1986.

Had the four Gospels used the title of Jesus the Christ or Jesus Christ throughout, in their witnessing of the life of an individual, they may have aroused suspicion as to the identity of the character who changed names from Immanuel to Jesus, but, they separated the personalities of Jesus and the Christ with such expertise that one does not query the fact that Jesus is used sis hundred and sixteen times in the four gospels and Christ a total of fifty-one times, giving us a ratio of 12.12 to 1.

One has to be a worshipper of Zeus, the Weather God, to really appreciate the importance of the number 12 in the faith of the Mithraist. The Sun rules over the twelve months of the solar year as Jesus led the group of twelve disciples, or as the twelve baskets of fragments were left after the feeding of the twelve thousand men and women.

Luke's synopsis, neither as witness nor as minister of the word, nor as Apostle, had been prepared for Emperor Theophilus, (Theo being Greek for God), and must have also included evidence from accounts written by eyewitnesses who had been Roman Mithraic soldiers, and other Mithraic citizens who had taken an interest in the life of the Messiah, and the official and personal records of the Roman Governors, Herod and Pontius Pilate

Mithraism was a mainly male religion, which had been most popular among the soldiery where all the young men of the society had been concentrated. The muscular strength and super-human feats of the sons of Zeus had provided the pre-occupation of hero-worship which led the youths to aspire to become successful gladiators and heroic soldiers, for the pleasure of His Imperial Majesty, himself a living son of Zeus.

The Olympic games that we witness today, originated in the Greek setting of Myths, and is held in honour of Zeus, with the gold medals going to the aspiring sons of Zeus. Fear of the devastating power of Zeus also discouraged any thoughts of disloyalty to the emperor, as Zeus was able to view mortals on Earth from the Sky above. All of this did not serve the common folk of the Empire, whose sons must serve as soldiers.

Luke, Theophilus, and Constantine, were of Gentile, Roman, Mithraic origin, among whom education was not without a high degree of Greek mythology. It had also been a necessity of office for rulers like Theophilus and Constantine to gain full knowledge of the history and religion of the Jews, whose history was of their religion and whose religion was of law and politics. The history of the Messiah had been very recent to Theophilus and would have been almost as fresh to Constantine.

Luke's assignment had been to produce an acceptable version of the Messiah controversy in such an ideal "order" (Luke 1:1) that Theophilus might gain "perfect understanding" of the events that led to the legal and political and religious battle that was waged between Pontius Pilate and the Jewish Sanhedrin of Jerusalem over the fate of the Messiah, on the day when the Jews should have engaged themselves in prayers of thanksgiving to their Lord for their deliverance from Pharaoh.

The Jews were instead engaged in demanding of the Roman Court, which was in recess on the holy day as a show of Roman respect for religion of the Jews, crucifixion for a just man who they wrongly and maliciously accused of being a seditionist, of claiming to be a son of God, and of making himself a King. The outcome of the legal/political/religious battle was the coronation of the King that became a God in the interlocking of Mithraism and Nazarene Mosaic Judaism.

The Roman Court responded to the unjust demands of the holy day with a brand of justice that should have made the Children of the House of Israel proud, had the Sanhedrin been the judge of the Court that conducted the proceedings. The Roman Governors were party to one of the finest miracles of the Messiah without realizing the magnitude of their participation. Herod had hoped for a miracle and he could not have been disappointed.

The Sadducees of the Sanhedrin, who had themselves been rulers over the Jews in their subjection to Rome, had also held "perfect understanding" of the mythology, superstition and politics of their Roman masters.

The birth of the Messiah made him the ideal candidate for sonship of Zeus, and his popularity as a miracle healer of disease made him more than just another God among Roman officials. (Matthew 8:5-13, Luke 7:1-10) The Centurion’s faith as commended by the Messiah, was more than that shown by the Jew in his worship of the One True God. Born of a virgin and without an earthly father, the Messiah made Zeus more of a reality to the Romans than the One God did to the Jews.

The Sadducees who sought to have the Messiah crucified, had rejected his prophethood outright, and they were very determined to have him suffer the same humiliating and accursed death as Mithras in order to have this rejected Messiah associated with the Gentile Mithraic sonship and worship of Zeus and not with Judaism. The frustration of being saddled with a Messiah that did not meet their expectations, added to their humiliation at the hands of Pontius Pilate, and their failure to have the Messiah crucified by their Mithraic masters, made the history of the Messiah one to be forgotten, altered, or discarded, by the Jews.

Their attempt to have him transferred wholly to Mithraism seemed to have been foiled by Pilate's proclamation that he was king of the Jews, but royalty was a main requirement of sonship to Zeus, so the Jews had become hitched to their own Mithraic wickedness.

The Gospel author John, also admits, like Luke, to having had access to much more than that which he had written, or to all that could have been written (John 21:25), giving to himself the same synoptic privileges enjoyed by Luke and displaying the same manner of reporting, which is that of the witnessing of others. (John 19:35, &21:24) This therefore leaves us with not three, but four Synoptic Gospels.

The fact that Luke is also the author of the Acts of the Apostles and the disorder into which the Gospels of the other supposed Apostles have been presented leads only to one conclusion, that Luke should appear first in line and as the one who is mainly responsible for what appears in the New Testament, and perhaps for the choice of the writings of the entire Bible.

The Jews intended exile of the Messiah's prophet hood to the sonship of Zeus had provided the grassroots of the Roman Mithraic society, with whom he had actually come in contact with his god-like healing powers and his ability to provide food miraculously for the vast multitudes which clung to him, with a Son of Zeus on whom they could depend to bring an end to all hunger and pain.

This son of Zeus could take in a wider section of the community than Mithras and as such he had to be worshipped as an equal with Zeus and he therefore had to be given the honour of being Zeus incarnate as his own son. Added to this, was the golden opportunity of the type of education previously procured only by doctors and rulers. An education in Greek mythology combined with Mosaic Law had become available to all and sundry. The fact that the two were incompatible did not matter to those who would not recognize this anyway, or to those who would exploit the mysterious combination.

The four Synoptic Gospels therefore must have been the work of Luke, or Luke and company, and the "order" mentioned is the juggling of positions and the quadruplicating of the Mithraic witnessing only, especially that of crucifixion and resurrection. The four can therefore be considered to be one whole Sophistic Gospel, a secret code and a Roman Mithraic document that made up a masterpiece in Roman culture, which was designed mainly for the education and understanding of the aristocratic ruling class. This document might have replaced or been added to any recorded history of the Messiah.